Timeline for Why does moving the adverb to the front remove ambiguity?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 12, 2015 at 9:09 | history | edited | user118723 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
That was not the question.
|
| Jun 12, 2015 at 9:02 | history | edited | Brian Hitchcock | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Took the WHY out of the Title so that it is not counterfactual. Moving adverb to front does not remove ambiguity, it adds ambiguity.
|
| Jun 12, 2015 at 7:14 | vote | accept | user118723 | ||
| Jun 12, 2015 at 2:35 | answer | added | Erik Kowal | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 12, 2015 at 2:14 | comment | added | Greg Lee | @JohnLawler, naive set theory is non-rigorous math, as compared with axiomatic set theory. The differential calculus with infinitesimals was, classically at least, non-rigorous, as compared with the development based on limits of series. | |
| Jun 12, 2015 at 1:58 | comment | added | John Lawler | In general, it doesn't. In some cases, it can. In this case, it's not clear that movement is improvement. How about "Students who study physics rigorously also learn math"? Adding a clarifying word, rather than making a random syntactic move, is more likely to help clarify. There are several issues here; is it possible to learn math in any other than a rigorous way? Not really; math is all about rigor. But engineering math is much more concerned with results and formulae, and knowing how to read scales and curves accurately. BTW, don't expect grammar to be "logical". | |
| Jun 12, 2015 at 1:41 | answer | added | Greg Lee | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 12, 2015 at 1:20 | history | asked | user118723 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |