It then goes further to offer optional technology use to create opportunities for interactive learning and computer use.

[hongy...@gmail.com]

I noticed the following description here [1]:

The new edition of Abstract Algebra: An Interactive Approach presents a hands-on and traditional approach to learning group, rings, and fields. It then goes further to offer optional technology use to create opportunities for interactive learning and computer use.


In the last sentence above, I think it should be rephrased as follows:

It then goes further to offer optional technology used to create opportunities for interactive learning and computer use.

That is, change the first "use" to "used". Any comments/corrections will be appreciated.

[1] http://myweb.astate.edu/wpaulsen/algebra.html

Regards,
Zhao

[Snidely]

hongy...@gmail.com asserted that:

Maybe, maybe not.

Your sentence is sensible, and it wouldn't be inappropriate, but I have
my doubts that it represents what was meant.

I think the sentence means the first "use" ("optional technology use")
to mean a /usage/ that is provided (or that you are licensed for?) that
allows computer use.

I do think, with this meaning, that the original phrasing is a bit
awkward.

/dps

--
You could try being nicer and politer
> instead, and see how that works out.
-- Katy Jennison

[Peter T. Daniels]

Does it offer the technology to be used, or does it offer the
use of the technology?

They want you to buy the book because it will teach you to
use the technology.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 3:00:16 AM UTC-6, snide...@gmail.com wrote:
> hongy...@gmail.com asserted that:
> > I noticed the following description here [1]:
> >
> > The new edition of Abstract Algebra: An Interactive Approach presents a
> > hands-on and traditional approach to learning group, rings, and fields. It
> > then goes further to offer optional technology use to create opportunities
> > for interactive learning and computer use.
> >
> >
> > In the last sentence above, I think it should be rephrased as follows:
> >
> > It then goes further to offer optional technology used to create
> > opportunities for interactive learning and computer use.
> >
> > That is, change the first "use" to "used". Any comments/corrections will be
> > appreciated.
> >
> > [1] http://myweb.astate.edu/wpaulsen/algebra.html
> >
> > Regards,
> > Zhao

> Maybe, maybe not.
>
> Your sentence is sensible, and it wouldn't be inappropriate, but I have
> my doubts that it represents what was meant.
>
> I think the sentence means the first "use" ("optional technology use")
> to mean a /usage/ that is provided (or that you are licensed for?) that
> allows computer use.

Yes, the following sentence (a separate paragraph) is "Each chapter
includes corresponding Sage worksheets and Mathematica notebooks
to explore groups, rings, fields, and additional topics." I think that's
an explanation of the optional technology use.

> I do think, with this meaning, that the original phrasing is a bit
> awkward.

Maybe more than a bit.

--
Jerry Friedman

[hongy...@gmail.com]

Why?

Regards,
Zhao

[Peter Moylan]

I agree with all of that. If the word "use" is part of the phrase
"optional technology use", as the authors seem to intend, then the
meaning is something like "we offer opportunities to do some exercises
on your own computer".

If you change this to "... offer optional technology, used to create
..." then it means that you get a free computer with each book.

In passing, I want to say that I deplore the current tendency to use the
word "technology" to mean "computers". It was started, I suspect, by
people (especially politicians) who didn't have a clear idea of what
"technology" means. There is a great deal of technology that doesn't use
computers, and which doesn't deserve being pushed into the background of
public discussion. Things that the general public doesn't understand are
not less valuable because of that ignorance.

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

The BBC used to have someone they called "our science correspondent"
(they probably still do; I don't know). He virtually never talked about
science; always about technology.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Peter Moylan]

Public broadcasters are, of course, restricted to reporting things that
the general public will understand. That probably rules out most of science.

[Richard Heathfield]

But it should not rule out the science that is taught in our
schools. If they don't expect kids to learn it, why spend so much
money teaching it?

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Peter Moylan]

On 15/08/22 17:05, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 15/08/2022 7:59 am, Peter Moylan wrote:
>> On 15/08/22 16:08, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2022-08-15 03:24:21 +0000, Peter Moylan said:
>>
>>>> In passing, I want to say that I deplore the current tendency
>>>> to use the word "technology" to mean "computers". It was
>>>> started, I suspect, by people (especially politicians) who
>>>> didn't have a clear idea of what "technology" means. There is a
>>>> great deal of technology that doesn't use computers, and which
>>>> doesn't deserve being pushed into the background of public
>>>> discussion. Things that the general public doesn't understand
>>>> are not less valuable because of that ignorance.
>>>
>>> The BBC used to have someone they called "our science
>>> correspondent" (they probably still do; I don't know). He
>>> virtually never talked about science; always about technology.
>>
>> Public broadcasters are, of course, restricted to reporting things
>> that the general public will understand. That probably rules out
>> most of science.
>
> But it should not rule out the science that is taught in our schools.
> If they don't expect kids to learn it, why spend so much money
> teaching it?

The science that is taught in primary schools doesn't add up to much at
all. That's an observation, not a complaint. You have to start children
off with the easy stuff.

The science that is taught in school years 7-10, roughly, still doesn't
add up to very much. It's in the nature of science that you have to go
through a lot of elementary stuff before you get to the real meat of the
subject.

In this state, and probably in a lot of other places, not all school
pupils do the same subjects. They start out doing a common syllabus, but
as the high school part rolls on there is some separation into streams,
and perhaps some provision for electing subjects. The end result is
that, by the final year of high school when the subjects are becoming
more intellectually challenging, only a small minority studies the
advanced levels of subjects like physics and chemistry and biology and
mathematics. Everyone else has found ways to avoid the "hard" subjects.

Thus, even by the end of secondary schooling, there is a separation
between those who have studied scientific subjects and those whose
exposure to science has been rudimentary at best.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:24:28 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:

> I agree with all of that. If the word "use" is part of the phrase
> "optional technology use", as the authors seem to intend, then the
> meaning is something like "we offer opportunities to do some exercises
> on your own computer".
>
> If you change this to "... offer optional technology, used to create
> ..." then it means that you get a free computer with each book.

I didn't understand that until I got to your next paragraph ...

> In passing, I want to say that I deplore the current tendency to use the
> word "technology" to mean "computers". It was started, I suspect, by

Maybe that's local to Down There?

[Jerry Friedman]

Or "software". I occasionally hear (U.S.) National Public Radio's "All Tech
Considered" segment, and it always seems to be about a software-related
decision by Apple, Google, Facebook, or Twitter.

> It was started, I suspect, by
> people (especially politicians) who didn't have a clear idea of what
> "technology" means. There is a great deal of technology that doesn't use
> computers, and which doesn't deserve being pushed into the background of
> public discussion. Things that the general public doesn't understand are
> not less valuable because of that ignorance.

I suspect that journalists are also involved, and that it's because
computing and communication technology has changed people's lives in
the past few decades much more than any other kind.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

Bite your tongue!

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

Because of the combination of "use" and "used". And you don't need both
"optional" and "opportunities". Or "then". And "interactive learning" and
"computer use" shouldn't be connected by "and" because they aren't separate
things--students can learn interactively by using a computer. Peter Moylan's
translation was much more concise and clear.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter Moylan]

On 15/08/22 23:25, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> Peter Moylan's translation was much more concise and clear.

Thank you.

I normally wouldn't follow up on something like that, but by coincidence
it hit me in the middle of a translation job. I've just discovered a
paper, in Russian, on a topic very close to my own past research, and
I'm curious to see whether this is an important new result. I picked up
on this because I could see one of my own papers referenced. Otherwise,
I would have had no idea what it might be about.

It turned out that Google Translate did an excellent job of turning it
into English. It totally stuffed up the mathematics, of course, and I
still have to repair that before I can understand the reasoning, but
otherwise the translation comes very close to what an English-speaker
would have written.

One strange quirk is that, in each line of mathematics that includes an
integral, the first left parenthesis in the expression was translated to
a word like "Respecting". (I've forgotten what the word was, because I
deleted each instance.) Overall, though, I'm impressed with the quality
of translation.

[Peter Moylan]

On 15/08/22 21:56, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:24:28 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:

>> In passing, I want to say that I deplore the current tendency to
>> use the word "technology" to mean "computers". It was started, I
>> suspect, by
>
> Maybe that's local to Down There?

I would be interested to know how widespread it is. But certainly I come
across many people who use "technology" to mean things like Facebook,
Twitter, phone apps, etc.

And, in that, they don't even include things like the design of
computers. It's all about the _use_ of modern technology to do
non-technological things.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:35:14 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:
> On 15/08/22 21:56, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:24:28 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan wrote:

> >> In passing, I want to say that I deplore the current tendency to
> >> use the word "technology" to mean "computers". It was started, I
> >> suspect, by
> > Maybe that's local to Down There?
>
> I would be interested to know how widespread it is. But certainly I come
> across many people who use "technology" to mean things like Facebook,
> Twitter, phone apps, etc.

That fits the 'software' interpretation someone mentioned.

> And, in that, they don't even include things like the design of
> computers. It's all about the _use_ of modern technology to do
> non-technological things.

Design of computers (hardware) seems like engineering.

[Sam Plusnet]

I've just glanced at the BBC's "Technology" subheading on their news
website.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology
All the immediate entries are pretty much what you suggest.
There is a story about the US plan to invest in 'Tech' - but that's an
import from the Business section - as is another about Musk selling
Tesla shares.

--
Sam Plusnet

[Peter Moylan]

On 16/08/22 22:54, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 16, 2022 at 12:35:14 AM UTC-4, Peter Moylan
> wrote:
>> On 15/08/22 21:56, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 14, 2022 at 11:24:28 PM UTC-4, Peter Moylan
>>> wrote:
>
>>>> In passing, I want to say that I deplore the current tendency
>>>> to use the word "technology" to mean "computers". It was
>>>> started, I suspect, by
>>> Maybe that's local to Down There?
>>
>> I would be interested to know how widespread it is. But certainly I
>> come across many people who use "technology" to mean things like
>> Facebook, Twitter, phone apps, etc.
>
> That fits the 'software' interpretation someone mentioned.

Yes, but it's all about _uses_ of technology created by someone else.
How many Facebook users are involved in designing and implementing
improvements to Facebook?

>> And, in that, they don't even include things like the design of
>> computers. It's all about the _use_ of modern technology to do
>> non-technological things.
>
> Design of computers (hardware) seems like engineering.

"Technology" and "engineering" are near-synonyms.

Not so long ago, only the hardware design was considered to be
technology. Software was considered to be a marginal case.

By now, it's considered by many people the creation of software is also
a form of technology.