the additive identity and the multiplicative identity are denoted respectively 0 and 1, as usual.

[hongy...@gmail.com]

I noticed the following description here [1]:

```
GF(2) is the field with the smallest possible number of elements, and is unique if the additive identity and the multiplicative identity are denoted respectively 0 and 1, as usual.
```

In the above wording, I think the following touch up can be applied as an improvement:

... are denoted [as] 0 and 1 respectively, as usual.

Any comments/corrections will be highly appreciated.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GF(2)

Regards,
HZ

[Peter T. Daniels]

Is it a matter of technical terminology / customary usage?

After you move "respectively" as you did, as ordinary English prose
it looks fine to me, but you could insert "by" (not "as") if for some
reason you wanted it to be longer.

[Jerry Friedman]

Phrases such as "denoted as", "named as", "designated as" are common these days,
but I prefer to omit the "as". As PTD says, "by" would be better than "as" here, but
using neither is even better.

As usual, "respectively" can be omitted. Anyone reading that knows which element
is 0 and which is 1. However, I don't object to it there as much as I often do. Putting
it at the end, as you did, is probably more natural, but its position in the original isn't
bad.

--
Jerry Friedman

[hongy...@gmail.com]

Regarding the wording above, how about the punctuation below?

After you move "respectively" as you did, as ordinary English prose[,]
it looks fine to me[.] [But] you could insert "by" (not "as") if for some

[hongy...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:47:36 PM UTC+8, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:23:36 AM UTC-6, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I noticed the following description here [1]:
> >
> > ```
> > GF(2) is the field with the smallest possible number of elements, and is unique if the additive identity and the multiplicative identity are denoted respectively 0 and 1, as usual.
> > ```
> >
> > In the above wording, I think the following touch up can be applied as an improvement:
> >
> > ... are denoted [as] 0 and 1 respectively, as usual.
> >
> > Any comments/corrections will be highly appreciated.
> >
> > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GF(2)
> Phrases such as "denoted as", "named as", "designated as" are common these days,
> but I prefer to omit the "as". As PTD says, "by" would be better than "as" here, but
> using neither is even better.
>
> As usual, "respectively" can be omitted. Anyone reading that knows which element
> is 0 and which is 1. However, I don't object to it there as much as I often do.

I'm very puzzled by your following wording used above:

"... to it there ..."

[Peter T. Daniels]

No. It is a restrictive, not a non-restrictive, modifier.

[hongy...@gmail.com]

Thank you for your explanation. I think your original wording is an inversion of the following:

It looks fine to me after you move "respectively" as you did, as ordinary English prose, but you could insert "by" (not "as") if for some reason you wanted it to be longer.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Not really, because I was saying "it looks fine to me as ordinary English
prose," the qualification needed because I don't know what the sentence
is talking about in technical prose.

[Jerry Friedman]

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 5:56:29 PM UTC-6, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 10:47:36 PM UTC+8, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:23:36 AM UTC-6, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > I noticed the following description here [1]:
> > >
> > > ```
> > > GF(2) is the field with the smallest possible number of elements, and is unique if the additive identity and the multiplicative identity are denoted respectively 0 and 1, as usual.
> > > ```
> > >
> > > In the above wording, I think the following touch up can be applied as an improvement:
> > >
> > > ... are denoted [as] 0 and 1 respectively, as usual.
> > >
> > > Any comments/corrections will be highly appreciated.
> > >
> > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GF(2)
> > Phrases such as "denoted as", "named as", "designated as" are common these days,
> > but I prefer to omit the "as". As PTD says, "by" would be better than "as" here, but
> > using neither is even better.
> >
> > As usual, "respectively" can be omitted. Anyone reading that knows which element
> > is 0 and which is 1. However, I don't object to it there as much as I often do.
> I'm very puzzled by your following wording used above:
>
> "... to it there ..."

By "there" I meant "in that sentence".

--
Jerry Friedman

[hongy...@gmail.com]

I have therefore reworded it as follows:

It looks fine to me as ordinary English prose as you did, after you move "respectively", but you could insert "by" (not "as") if for some reason you wanted it to be longer.

HZ

[CDB]

On 5/31/2022 1:07 AM, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>> hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>>>> hongy...@gmail.com wrote:

"As you did" should follow "move 'respectively'" to make it clear that
that is what the person whom you address did.

It looks fine to me as ordinary English prose, after you move
"respectively" as you did, but you could insert "by" (not "as") if for

[Peter T. Daniels]

??

"as you did" what? What does "as" refer to?

CDB shows you how to fix it, but you've changed the order of thoughts
as they were put in the original sentence, each one following from the
preceding one.