Diploma thesis correction
- Thread starter Hardcore
- Start date
-
Hey - turns out IRC is out and something a little more modern has taken it's place... A little thing called Discord!
Join our community @ https://discord.gg/JuaSzXBZrk for a pick-up game, or just to rekindle with fellow community members.
what bothers me here is, that when you leave out the brackets, the sentence misses the essential info on one of the two things compared with(!) each other. i think i'll just split this fucker up into two or three sentences.
testbeam is a word in this case, i think. it is all over the place. sometimes they spell it 'test beam' sometimes 'testbeam'. that's the setup for and act of evaluating DUTs (devices under test).
"actually" ... i thought this one was quite important. wanna put it in italic as well i think. because the important thing is, that you compare DUT measurements to the reality. and we assume to know the reality (what _actually_ happened - not what the DUT saw). so we compare the two. thats what i wanna express anyway
sufficient length of time -> sounds good, yeah!
quality features: you are right... what i wanna say is: i wanna see how well the DUT performs by evaluating multiple features, like its "efficiency", "purity" and "spatial resolution". i'd like to call these "features" and they are responsible for the DUT's quality.
so... hm...
just "evaluate the performance of the DUT" ?
(i wanna avoid having too many "of the" because it sounds n00bish to me)
quality features: you are right... what i wanna say is: i wanna see how well the DUT performs by evaluating multiple features, like its "efficiency", "purity" and "spatial resolution". i'd like to call these "features" and they are responsible for the DUT's quality.
so... hm...
just "evaluate the performance of the DUT" ?
(i wanna avoid having too many "of the" because it sounds n00bish to me)
@ Joko:
thanks for your input as well
what i mean to say is, that i can't just compare the signals. signal 1 > signal 2. i have to abstract the measurements to a higher level first of all - for them to be comparable. but just putting "high level" there does not explain it very well. that's true! i think i'll change that bit
then i'll go for "with". i had the impression from dict.leo.org, that there was no real difference - or that "with" was uncommon. but the others agree here, i guess?
thanks for your input as well
two more things:
1) i am talking about a pixel sensor there. would it be okay to say "that pixel's signal is very strong" even though a pixel is not a person?
2) "This type of noise is also called thermal noise and can be only partially reduced - for example by cooling the device excessively. %TODO CORRECT?"
"can be only partially reduced"
"can be reduced only partially"
"can reduced only partially be, my young padawan"
"can only partially be reduced" ???
(btw the todo is there to tell me, that I should go and check, if what i am writing is actually true
)
1) i am talking about a pixel sensor there. would it be okay to say "that pixel's signal is very strong" even though a pixel is not a person?
2) "This type of noise is also called thermal noise and can be only partially reduced - for example by cooling the device excessively. %TODO CORRECT?"
"can be only partially reduced"
"can be reduced only partially"
"can reduced only partially be, my young padawan"
"can only partially be reduced" ???
(btw the todo is there to tell me, that I should go and check, if what i am writing is actually true
)jep jep. this ^
and:
is it true, that it would be weird if i wrote "this is the so-called taki-method" ?
i heard that "so-called" always has a negative connotation in the english language.
so far i always avoided it by writing "... is referred to as ..." etc. but this gets boring after a while as well...
and:
is it true, that it would be weird if i wrote "this is the so-called taki-method" ?
i heard that "so-called" always has a negative connotation in the english language.
so far i always avoided it by writing "... is referred to as ..." etc. but this gets boring after a while as well...
yeh
but:
+ one more important thing:
"Also there was a broad consesus, first, about the scintillator area being larger than the other shithole."
1) "...was a broad consensus..." ??
-> a) "broad consensus"? does this fit together? how do you express what I wanna say here (i wanna say, that many ppl shared the same opinion)
-> b) "IS" there a consensus? how do you say, that a consensus "is" there. does it "float around"? you know what I mean? in german you say that the consensus "rules". as in 'the consensus is existing and valid and everyone knows it, so the consensus "herrscht" '. ("herrsches" in genglish fatal1ty herrsches)
2) "... about the area being larger..."
Is it bad style to use this construction with "being" ? mate told me so.
i think it's cool. just like "Having said that, ..."
Ssometimes i think, that some german ppl don't like english expressions and think they sound noobish. just because they don't know them themselves. What do you guys think?
(+ i'd appreciate a lot any of my other questions before being answered)
thanks in advance!!!
but:
+ one more important thing:
"Also there was a broad consesus, first, about the scintillator area being larger than the other shithole."
1) "...was a broad consensus..." ??
-> a) "broad consensus"? does this fit together? how do you express what I wanna say here
(i wanna say, that many ppl shared the same opinion)-> b) "IS" there a consensus? how do you say, that a consensus "is" there. does it "float around"? you know what I mean? in german you say that the consensus "rules". as in 'the consensus is existing and valid and everyone knows it, so the consensus "herrscht" '. ("herrsches" in genglish
fatal1ty herrsches)2) "... about the area being larger..."
Is it bad style to use this construction with "being" ? mate told me so.
i think it's cool. just like "Having said that, ..."
Ssometimes i think, that some german ppl don't like english expressions and think they sound noobish. just because they don't know them themselves. What do you guys think?
(+ i'd appreciate a lot any of my other questions before being
answered)thanks in advance!!!
Last edited:
broad consensus is fine.
there was a broad consensus that the scintillator area was larger ...
although this is clearly implies people dont agree with this anymore as it's past tense, maybe you want
there is a broad consensus that the scintillator area is larger ...
a shorter alternative would be:
it was commonly agreed upon that ...
or
it is commonly agreed upon that ...
there was a broad consensus that the scintillator area was larger ...
although this is clearly implies people dont agree with this anymore as it's past tense, maybe you want
there is a broad consensus that the scintillator area is larger ...
a shorter alternative would be:
it was commonly agreed upon that ...
or
it is commonly agreed upon that ...
)
yeh
but:
+ one more important thing:
"Also there was a broad consesus, first, about the scintillator area being larger than the other shithole."
1) "...was a broad consensus..." ??
-> a) "broad consensus"? does this fit together? how do you express what I wanna say here
-> b) "IS" there a consensus? how do you say, that a consensus "is" there. does it "float around"? you know what I mean? in german you say that the consensus "rules". as in 'the consensus is existing and valid and everyone knows it, so the consensus "herrscht" '. ("herrsches" in genglish
2) "... about the area being larger..."
Is it bad style to use this construction with "being" ? mate told me so.
i think it's cool. just like "Having said that, ..."
Ssometimes i think, that some german ppl don't like english expressions and think they sound noobish. just because they don't know them themselves. What do you guys think?
(+ i'd appreciate a lot any of my other questions before being
thanks in advance!!!
"Broad consensus" is OK but it doesn't mean that this was what the majority agreed upon. There might be another consensus, slightly broader, which says that the opposite is true. Use Joko's "agreed upon" or whatever.
And "being" is absolutely fine.
"that pixel's signal is very strong" is fine.
"can be only partially reduced" - perfect
"can be reduced only partially" - exact same as above, except rearranged - first one is better because you're ending on an adverb
"can reduced only partially be, my young padawan" - fine if you're three feet tall and look like a foot
"can only partially be reduced" - wrong because it says that the only thing that can happen is that it's partially reduced, which is not what you're trying to say
cool, fänx!
i had the "perfect" version already :cool:
the consensus thing is alright.
cause what most ppl thought turned out to be wrong.
and who found out about it?
<------
... as always
by chance.
as always
-------------
so it would be okay to say "the car's license plate?"
or even "the car's driver"?! i guess in that case one would use "of", right?
what about the text being a scientific one?
could an LLM student write
"the public law's text version is 5000 pages long and i had to fucking learn it by..." ?
or would it sound better, if she ;( wrote
"the text version of the public law is 5000 pages long but it was enough to wear a tight..."
i had the "perfect" version already :cool:
the consensus thing is alright.
cause what most ppl thought turned out to be wrong.
and who found out about it?
<------
... as always
by chance.
as always
-------------
so it would be okay to say "the car's license plate?"
or even "the car's driver"?! i guess in that case one would use "of", right?
what about the text being a scientific one?
could an LLM student write
"the public law's text version is 5000 pages long and i had to fucking learn it by..." ?
or would it sound better, if she ;( wrote
"the text version of the public law is 5000 pages long but it was enough to wear a tight..."
Both fine if the context is an informal one.
Second one sounds much better. Scientific papers are supposed to be formal and people don't like to use or see contractions in them. Contractions (ie. "law's") are too informal and are almost always used in speech. The last place to use one is in a scientific paper. Avoid "the public law's text version".
now i'm fucked.
i hoped joko had saved my ass
so you are basically saying, that I have to change
my beloved
"There is no sign of any correlation between a pixel's position and its efficiency."
to
"There is no sign of any correlation between the position of a pixel and its efficiency"
or to
"There is no sign of any correlation between the pixel position and efficiency"
?!?!??!
(but i don't like the 2nd one that much)
got tons of these constructions.
and: yeah, well it is a scientific text =/ if one stays at uni in germany the next thing to write is papers and a PhD thesis...
i hoped joko had saved my ass
so you are basically saying, that I have to change
my beloved
"There is no sign of any correlation between a pixel's position and its efficiency."
to
"There is no sign of any correlation between the position of a pixel and its efficiency"
or to
"There is no sign of any correlation between the pixel position and efficiency"
?!?!??!
(but i don't like the 2nd one that much)
got tons of these constructions.
and: yeah, well it is a scientific text =/ if one stays at uni in germany the next thing to write is papers and a PhD thesis...
No, I wouldn't worry about it in that way. The possessive is fine, as I assume all your uses of contractions are (ie. "a pixel's thing" - a thing belonging to a pixel), but I was thinking more of contractions which cut off the words 'is', 'has', 'have', 'am' etc. Like 'that's why this happened' or 'next I'm going to' or 'we've got to do further tests'. Those are the words to avoid contracting in formal contexts, but in the examples you've quoted it's the possessive participle (I think that's the word, it's been a while since I did grammar) and is perfectly OK. Not in a million years will your paper be the only one which contains any