FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math
Newton Raphson variants...
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2 [22 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2
Author Message
Phil Carmody
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:01 pm    Post subject: Re: Newton Raphson variants... Reply with quote

Peter Luschny <spamgrube@luschny.de> writes:
Quote:
Phil Carmody writes:
Peter Luschny <spamgrube@luschny.de> writes:
Phil Carmody schrieb:
"Hugo Pfoertner" <nothing@abouthugo.de> wrote

And where did Ernst Schröder lose the German Umlaut "ö"? The only
acceptable transcription of the German Umlaut derived from "o" is "oe".
i.e. Schröder --> Schroeder

Schroeder's original article
Ignore Hugo, he's full of old-Europe huff and nonsense. In a
_German_ medium the only acceptable transliteration is as he
indicates. _Usenet is not a German medium_. It is the target that
decides the rules for transliteration therein, not the source
language.

Ignore Phil, he does not know the difference between
'transcription' ans 'transliteration'.

Given that the process being performed was precisely transliteration,
that's the word I used.

First, I will explain my understanding of the terms.

* Transliteration:
* A transliteration is a re-write, which is neutral in regard to a target
* language, and which can be unambiguously translated back (one-to-one).

A transliteration is a mapping of the glosses of the source
character set to the target character set. It is not necessarily
reversible.

Quote:
* Transcription:
* A transcription is re-write, which is specific in regard to a target
* language, and where in particular the phonetics of the target language
* is taken into account. A one-to-one relation is not aimed at.

That's closer to the truth. It's a mapping that attempts to preserve
the phonectic aspects.

Do you really claim that transcription was taking place?

If so, what's the target audience in the examples in question
(names of authors and papers in academic journals, say)?
The generic you seems to have just assumed that 'oe' to the
readership will be pronounced similarly to how the Germans
pronounce 'ö'. What is the justification for that assumption?

Believe me - most Brits and Americans who haven't prior knowledge
of German have absolutely no idea how to pronounce German words
whether they are spelt with the full latin-1 character set, or with
the German approved transliterations, sorry, transcriptions.
The 'oe' fails completely as a phonetic indicator to that target
audience.

Watch Brit TV adverts for your beers. Sob your eyes out when
you hear what their names have become. No amount of your
standardised 'transcriptions' will fix that. Just give up
already.

Quote:
For example:

Transliteration: "Hugo Pförtner" -> "Hugo Pfoertner" -> "Hugo Pförtner"
Valid for the French, the Japanese, the Useneters and even the Finns.

What do you mean by 'valid for'?

If a Brit sees your output, "Hugo Pfoertner", then how is he supposed
to know whether the original name was really "Hugo Pfoertner" or
"Hugo Pförtner"?

The glosses you write do not contain all the necessary information
to perform the mapping back to the original glosses.

Worse, if a Brit sees "suesssauer", how is he supposed to know if the
original word was:

süßsaür
süßsauer
sueßsaür
sueßsauer
süsßaür
süsßauer
suesßaür
suesßauer
süsssaür
süsssauer
suesssaür
suesssauer


Quote:
Transcription (target language Finnish):
"Hugo Pförtner" -> "Hugo Pfortner" -> "Hug? Pf?rtner"

Erm, the Finns have an ö, thank you. They transliterate it into
ASCII as o or |, depending on the medium. They do not transliterate
it to oe. If they transliterate it to 'o' they do not expect
anyone else to know that the original had the diacritic.


Quote:
The given and widely used definitions presumed, your comments ...

In a _German_ medium the only acceptable transliteration is as he
indicates. _Usenet is not a German medium_. It is the target that
decides the rules for transliteration therein, not the source language.

... do not make sens.

It does. In simple terms, you have no right to tell other people
how to mangle your language.

You are free, encouraged even, to pre-mangle on egress. But once
it's in someone else's hands only they will decide what are the
rules, standardised or not, that will be used.

If I want Estonian karaoke DJs to call my name out as "Phil"
rather than "<pause> <sigh> <pause> <stutter> P'hil", then I will
write "Fil" as my name.

Do not expect others to have any interest in satisfying your
particular various language-rendering foibles.

Phil
--
The man who is always worrying about whether or not his soul would be
damned generally has a soul that isn't worth a damn.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (1809-1894), American physician and writer
Back to top
Phil Carmody
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 05 Jun 2005
Posts: 267

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 3:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Newton Raphson variants... Reply with quote

Hugo Pfoertner <nothing@abouthugo.de> writes:
Quote:
Ignore Hugo, he's full of old-Europe huff and nonsense.

No comment on this, it speaks for the qualification of the writer.

Quite evidently it doesn't. It shows I still like the rhetoric
of the sides-separated-by-sword-lengths style of debating, and
says nothing about anything about any of my qualifications.

I mean, just look at it - it's a comment about _your_ delivery
style. Glad to see you respond with more huff to demonstrate
the point, in particular as it was of the nonsense variety.

If you don't believe these other transliterations should exist
maybe you should have the German DNS registry strip
ubermensch.de from Matthias Bauer, or is that Matthias Baür,
who lives in Saarbruecken, or is that Saarbrücken.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the one way you assert is the
only correct way is _not_ the only way.

Phil
--
The man who is always worrying about whether or not his soul would be
damned generally has a soul that isn't worth a damn.
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (1809-1894), American physician and writer
Back to top
Peter Luschny
science forum beginner


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 5:48 pm    Post subject: Re: Newton Raphson variants... Reply with quote

"Hugo Pfoertner" wrote:
And where did Ernst Schröder lose the German Umlaut "ö"? The only
acceptable transcription of the German Umlaut derived from "o" is "oe".
i.e. Schröder --> Schroeder

Phil Carmody wrote:
Ignore Hugo, he's full of old-Europe huff and nonsense. In a
_German_ medium the only acceptable transliteration is as he
indicates. _Usenet is not a German medium_. It is the target that
decides the rules for transliteration therein, not the source
language.

Peter Luschny wrote:
Ignore Phil, he does not know the difference between
'transcription' ans 'transliteration'.

Quote:
First, I will explain my understanding of the terms.

* Transliteration:
* A transliteration is a re-write, which is neutral in regard to a target
* language, and which can be unambiguously translated back (one-to-one).

A transliteration is a mapping of the glosses of the source
character set to the target character set. It is not necessarily
reversible.

Wikipedia is on my side: "Transliteration is a mapping from one system of
writing into another. Transliteration attempts to be lossless, so that
an informed reader should be able to reconstruct the original spelling
of unknown transliterated words."

It is sometimes of great importance to have a one-to-one mapping.
Imagine a non-reversible "transliteration" of {0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}
to the Arabic script, for example.

This does not mean that there is only /one/ transliteration. For example
the German transliteration [DIN] of the Cyrillic script differs from the
[ISO] transliteration. And, yes, the [BSI] transliteration differs from
the [ISO] transliteration also. And, needless to say, [BSI] differs from
[DIN] ... And *this* is the cause of most of the confusion.

Quote:
* Transcription:
* A transcription is re-write, which is specific in regard to a target
* language, and where in particular the phonetics of the target language
* is taken into account. A one-to-one relation is not aimed at.

That's closer to the truth. It's a mapping that attempts to preserve
the phonectic aspects.

In all that is no truth. These are definitions used by huge
organization for standardization all over the world and it just
a good advice not to use a private definition here.

[...]

Quote:
Watch Brit TV adverts for your beers.

Wink) I do prefer to drink German beer..

Quote:
Transliteration: "Hugo Pförtner" -> "Hugo Pfoertner" -> "Hugo Pförtner"

If a Brit sees your output, "Hugo Pfoertner", then how is he supposed
to know whether the original name was really "Hugo Pfoertner" or
"Hugo Pförtner"?

I wrote 'transliteration'. Just remember my definition:
* A transliteration is a re-write, which is neutral in regard to a target
* language, and which can be unambiguously translated back (one-to-one).

So it is nothing more then look up in some table. In which table?
Well, I commented about this above.

And let me add: My intention was not to help the 'Brits' when they
encounter Hugo Pförtner, but to clarify the terms 'transliteration'
and 'transcription'.

Ah, look here, what I found on Wikipedia:

Transcription is often confused with transliteration, due to a common
journalistic practice of mixing elements of both in rendering foreign
names. The resulting practical transcription is a hybrid called both
transcription and transliteration by general public.

Quote:
Worse, if a Brit sees "suesssauer", how is he supposed to know if the
original word was:
süßsaür
süßsauer
sueßsaür
sueßsauer
süsßaür
süsßauer
suesßaür
suesßauer
süsssaür
süsssauer
suesssaür
suesssauer

Wink) Remember that I do not advertise any transliteration or
transcription. However, your impressive example shows again,
how useful a transliteration (in the one-to-one sens) sometimes
could be. Not only to the 'Brits' :)

Quote:
Transcription (target language Finnish):
"Hugo Pförtner" -> "Hugo Pfortner" -> "Hug? Pf?rtner"

Erm, the Finns have an ö, thank you.

But this does not mean in any way, that ö -> ö would be a good
transcription! Perhaps the Finns say 'rr' when they see 'ö'.
I don't know.

Quote:
They transliterate it into
ASCII as o or |, depending on the medium. They do not transliterate
it to oe. If they transliterate it to 'o' they do not expect
anyone else to know that the original had the diacritic.

So it is a transcription and everything is just fine -- except of
your use of the terms 'transcription' and 'transliteration'.

Quote:
It does. In simple terms, you have no right to tell other people
how to mangle your language.

Do not expect others to have any interest in satisfying your
particular various language-rendering foibles.

Don't worry. This is not my intention in any way.

Grüße Peter
Back to top
Dik T. Winter
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1359

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:20 am    Post subject: Re: Newton Raphson variants... Reply with quote

In article <e8or66$eds$1@online.de> Peter Luschny <spamgrube@luschny.de> writes:
....
Quote:
A transliteration is a mapping of the glosses of the source
character set to the target character set. It is not necessarily
reversible.

Wikipedia is on my side: "Transliteration is a mapping from one system of
writing into another. Transliteration attempts to be lossless, so that
an informed reader should be able to reconstruct the original spelling
of unknown transliterated words."

Perhaps. But see below.

Quote:
It is sometimes of great importance to have a one-to-one mapping.

Yes, and sometimes (even many times) such one-to-one mappings do not exist.
Certainly not when the target script has only 26 symbols available. When
I see 'ss' in German text transliterated to the 26 letters of the Latin
script. How am I to know whether I have to backtranslate it to 'ß'?
For instance, should I backtranslate "Strasse" to "Strasse" or to
"Straße". I have no idea, unless I know for certain that it was in
Switzerland or not, or in what period it had been written, or whatever.

Quote:
This does not mean that there is only /one/ transliteration. For example
the German transliteration [DIN] of the Cyrillic script differs from the
[ISO] transliteration. And, yes, the [BSI] transliteration differs from
the [ISO] transliteration also. And, needless to say, [BSI] differs from
[DIN] ... And *this* is the cause of most of the confusion.

There is a more thorough source of confusion. The Cyrillic script is used
in many languages, and I think you would be very surprised to see a country
name as "B'lgariya". What some Cyrillic symbol represents in one language
can be quite different from what it represents in another language. So
a transliteration that is adequate for one language is not necessarily so
for another language.

Quote:
If a Brit sees your output, "Hugo Pfoertner", then how is he supposed
to know whether the original name was really "Hugo Pfoertner" or
"Hugo Pf=F6rtner"?

I wrote 'transliteration'. Just remember my definition:
* A transliteration is a re-write, which is neutral in regard to a target
* language, and which can be unambiguously translated back (one-to-one).

But you need to know the source language to do that back translation. But
not only the source language, you need much more. From my previous example:
"Straße", the common spelling in Germany and Austria (though not everywhere),
but *never* used in Switzerland.

Quote:
So it is nothing more then look up in some table. In which table?
Well, I commented about this above.

Yes, so I look up in a table (for German I presume) and find the sequence
'ue'. Should I back-translate it to 'ü' or not? Even in German there
are places where 'u' and 'e' coincide without being a 'ü'. As an example,
should "Neue" be back-translated to "Neü¨? On the other hand, are there
places where 'e' and 'ü' coincide? I do not know, but I think there may
be. So the German replacement of ä, ö, ü and ß to ae, oe, ue and ss is
*not* a transliteration. You need to know the language before you can
perform the back-transformation.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Back to top
Dik T. Winter
science forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1359

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:24 am    Post subject: Re: Newton Raphson variants... Reply with quote

In article <871wswcf8e.fsf@nonospaz.fatphil.org> Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> writes:
....
Quote:
If so, what's the target audience in the examples in question
(names of authors and papers in academic journals, say)?

This reminds me of something. A long time ago a co-worker submitted a
paper to a journal mentioning the name of Gauß. One of the referees
asked what that beta was doing in the name.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Back to top
Peter Luschny
science forum beginner


Joined: 13 May 2005
Posts: 36

PostPosted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:01 am    Post subject: Re: Newton Raphson variants... Reply with quote

Dik T. Winter writes:
Quote:
Peter Luschny writes:

A transliteration is a mapping of the glosses of the source
character set to the target character set. It is not necessarily
reversible.

Wikipedia is on my side: "Transliteration is a mapping from one system of
writing into another. Transliteration attempts to be lossless, so that
an informed reader should be able to reconstruct the original spelling
of unknown transliterated words."

It is sometimes of great importance to have a one-to-one mapping.

Yes, and sometimes (even many times) such one-to-one mappings do not exist.
Certainly not when the target script has only 26 symbols available.

.. and many, many problems arise from this fact. This is true and we can
fill this newsgroup till doomsday with examples how badly things can fail.

But Superman was here and bestowed Unicode to the world. So in fact
this problem is solved in principle. And turns this discussion into a
somewhat spooky retrospection of the dark ages.

I am not inclined to discuss the failures of 7-bit ASCII in the
real world - I just pointed out that the terms used have some
formal properties like being bijective or surjective etc. which
might help to clarify things.

Of course I assumed the terms to be well-defined and consistently used.

Quote:
There is a more thorough source of confusion. The Cyrillic script is used
in many languages, and I think you would be very surprised to see a country
name as "B'lgariya". What some Cyrillic symbol represents in one language
can be quite different from what it represents in another language. So
a transliteration that is adequate for one language is not necessarilyso
for another language.

Goodness gracious me! A transliteration does not need to be adequate
for one language or another because by its very definition ...
* A transliteration is a re-write, which is neutral in regard to a target
* language, and which can be unambiguously translated back (one-to-one).
..it is independent from language specifics.

Quote:
I wrote 'transliteration'. Just remember my definition:
* A transliteration is a re-write, which is neutral in regard to a target
* language, and which can be unambiguously translated back (one-to-one).

But you need to know the source language to do that back translation.

If I use a one-to-one mapping? Or what do /you/ mean with 'translation'?
A transliteration followed by a transcription? If so, a translation
is no transliteration.

Quote:
But not only the source language, you need much more. From my previousexample:
"Straße", the common spelling in Germany and Austria (though not everywhere),
but *never* used in Switzerland.

Yes, of course. There are several ISO and RFC documents which deal with
this. Just look at the meta-tags in the html pages. For example
<meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en-us">
clearly identifies the language of the document to the
United States *dialect* of English.

Quote:
So it is nothing more then look up in some table. In which table?
Well, I commented about this above.

Yes, so I look up in a table (for German I presume) and find the sequence
'ue'. Should I back-translate it to 'ü' or not? Even in German there
are places where 'u' and 'e' coincide without being a 'ü'.

Clearly things do not stop with the terms 'transcription' and
'transliteration'. But how can we discuss further-ranging concepts
if even these basic ones are confused?

Peter
Back to top
Dann Corbit
science forum beginner


Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 7:43 pm    Post subject: Re: Newton Raphson variants... Reply with quote

"Hugo Pfoertner" <nothing@abouthugo.de> wrote in message
news:44AF739B.369D1EB2@abouthugo.de...
[snip]
Quote:
Ernst Schroeder died in 1902; he probably would be amused about our
discussion Wink He was one of the founders (Gruender, not Grunder) of the
"Deutsche Mathematiker-Vereinigung" (German National Mathematical
Society)
http://www.mathematik.uni-bielefeld.de/DMV/archiv/gruend_u.html

I know who he was, when the article was published, and when he died.
Hence the word 'posthumus' in my original message.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 2 of 2 [22 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Sun Nov 18, 2018 12:03 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Math
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Newton discoveing calculus Dan in Philly Math 3 Fri Jul 21, 2006 2:25 am
No new posts Newton's formula kunzmilan@atlas.cz Math 0 Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:12 am
No new posts what's the concept of "Newton gradient"? Thanks gaolgifer Undergraduate 0 Wed Jul 05, 2006 5:16 am
No new posts Newton’s Second Law is a Relativistic Law nhamdan2 Relativity 32 Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:36 pm
No new posts Newton-Kantorovich theorem proof needed lucas num-analysis 4 Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:10 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0227s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0023s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]