1

I am writing a paper in which I would like to point to fact that some phenomenon is not a mere coincidence (and is relevant from point of view of the theory I work within), and afterwards I explain why it is the case. I was thinking of using something like:

It is not a coincidence that structures from theorem T have a property P.

But now I have some second thoughts - does it convey the intended meaning? How about:

There is a reason behind the fact that structures from theorem T have a property P.

I will be grateful for help.

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    One can only claim that a phenomenon is general by proving it. Thus, a typical statement is: << It can be shown that the sum of the interior angles of all triangles is the same (180 degrees). >>
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Oct 22, 2016 at 22:37
  • 1
    Not a lot to go on here without more context. Either could work, as could "It is not an accident that ..." That said, based on the information you've provided, I prefer your second option. It speaks positively to reason as opposed to negatively to coincidence or accident. That structures from Theorem T have Property P is probably the inevitable result of the structures from Theorem T, and Theorem T itself, being based in part on the definition of Property P.
    – Richard Kayser
    Commented Oct 22, 2016 at 22:55
  • 2
    Agree with @EdwinAshworth - maybe: “Further, we can prove that structures from Theorem T must have property P.”
    – Jim
    Commented Oct 23, 2016 at 0:36
  • There is a reason is pretty hollow, by itself. Just say ... because.... In other words, give the reason, instead of asserting that there is a reason. (And if you don't know the reason then you cannot assert that there is one.)
    – Drew
    Commented Oct 23, 2016 at 1:25
  • Structures from theorem T must have a property P.
    – paparazzo
    Commented Oct 23, 2016 at 12:19

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
1

This seems more a question about how to word a segue, rather than how to describe an intrinsic relationship between facts. I mean, for example:

  • It is not a coincidence that calculating the area of a square resembles calculating the area of a rectangle, because one is a special case of the other
  • It is not a coincidence that sodium reacts similarly to potassium, because they have the same periodic group; that idea was a major conceptual breakthrough in its day

Saying "it's not a coincidence" is a perfectly fine way of saying that there's a connecting principle which you mean to elaborate on. The actual principle might be a new observation, or a bit of reasoning, or a semantic argument, or whatever. Related turns of phrase include "by a similar argument...", "this also accounts for...", etc.

Improve this answer
1
  • Your answer convinced me that the first thought was the best one :) Thanks a lot!
    – Rafał Gruszczyński
    Commented Oct 24, 2016 at 7:52
1

“It is not a coincidence that structures from theorem T have a property P.” seems to be the clearer option. Consider that “There is a reason [...]” does not exclude the possibility that coincidence is the reason.

Of course, you shouldn’t expect either phrase to be enough, so don’t give up on including that explanation as to why the non-coincidence is the case!

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    I am voting this up to offset the anonymous downvote.
    – michael.hor257k
    Commented Oct 23, 2016 at 1:03
1

Depending on how sure you are it was not a coincidence and whether you have evidence to back it up, I suggest...

  • Some evidence make us believe that structures from theorem T having a property P is not a random incident.
  • Our study demonstrates and proves that structures from theorem T have a property P.
  • Our findings are significant enough to make us conclude that structures from theorem T have a property P.
  • We can conclude beyond any doubt that structures from theorem T have a property P.
Improve this answer
3
  • I don't think you have read the question correctly.
    – michael.hor257k
    Commented Oct 23, 2016 at 1:04
  • @michael.hor257k From what I read, the OP wants to say that a certain scientific observation seems to be more than a coincidence... that there may be some evidence to back it up. That's what I understand. I've tried to improve it, though. Please tell me what you yourself make of it.
    – Centaurus
    Commented Oct 23, 2016 at 12:12
  • Only your first sentence is to the point. The other three deal with the observation itself, not with its meaning.
    – michael.hor257k
    Commented Oct 23, 2016 at 13:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .