Matematikos terminų žodyno sulaukus

In order for the Lithuanian language to be equal to the modern languages of the cultured civilized ir nations, we need to have only a correct, well-organized common language. ir ne — to perhaps enough at the beginning of this century, —but also the correct language of science. And the language of science is the same common language plus the terminology of science. Therefore, in order to maintain the vitality of our language and its prestige (not only among linguistics specialists), we need to speed up the process of organizing and standardizing, where it is lacking, and to create Lithuanian scientific terminology. I emphasize Lithuanian, one international, because, in some opinion, there is no need to create or standardize Lithuanian terms. It is enough to take international (or even more simply, other language) terms and add Lithuanian endings and suffixes to them. This would be simpler and more scientific (and, we would add, to the West faster). In order to have a Lithuanian scientific language, as many terms as possible must be genuinely Lithuanian. Therefore, every article or publication on scientific terms, and even more so a dictionary of terms, causes great interest — it is interesting to see what new things it has brought to the development of our scientific language. We have been eagerly waiting for the publication of the Mathematical Terms Dictionary (MTD). Although the "Physical Terms Dictionary" (FTZ) published 15 years ago contains some of the most essential mathematical terms for physicists, they are not enough. We knew that the Mathematical Terms Commission had created many new Lithuanian terms or replaced older ones, so it was important to get acquainted with them as soon as possible. I am not going to write a review of that dictionary — I do not feel competent. I just want to talk about some common or close terms of mathematics and physics, discuss the similarities and differences in their use. Sometimes we hear reproaches that physicists and mathematicians use different terms for the same concepts. ir ir mé (see section 4.4). FIZ ir MTZ). Can they not agree on a common deadline? I want to answer that these different terms are used deliberately, there is no ir disagreement here. One term should be used only when the terms are identical 27 (i.e. is one ta concept itself). In this case, the terms meaning value are used to ir denote different concepts. Mathematicians use the term meaning to tell ar what kind of number (or other mathematical quantity) or jo magnitude it means. Physicists use the term value to say how ar much as a physical quantity is estimated in the selected (usually international) system of units. For example, a physicist will say: ‘The value of the magnitude in the g free-fall formula is the free-fall acceleration, o jo expressed 9,81 as m/s*’, or “The importance h of Planck’s constant in physics is very great, its value is o very small (6,6-10:* Is)”. Both of these values were evaluated experimentally. Many physical quantities can be estimated theoretically calculated using mathematical formulas models. ir — ar In fact, sometimes the same concepts are expressed in different terms in neighbouring branches of science. Then it is already difficult to avoid confusion. An example of this is the use of the terms komponeritas componentė ir in Lithuanian language. They both come from iš to of the Latin word componens itself (kilm. components). But they can hardly ar be considered international. The English use only component, the Germans only Component, the French neither one, — the Russians both. o — Both of them denote a component of someone (instrument, equipment, ar chemical compound mixture) part. The first is usually used by technical chemists, the second by ir mathematicians. o Physicists often — use both terms in the same text. For example, in the theory of electromagnetism, the field strength is described by the electromagnetic field tensor, whose components (components) is the electric field strength magnetic field strength ir (see section 4.4). FTŽ). O of the above ko m tensor (including jo components) are components of strong ir vectors of an electromagnetic field (MTŽ). So we have to say components of components or components are components. In order to avoid confusion, instead of both terms tų we often used the Lithuanian term dedamėji, which was used by mathematicians alongside the component. ir Now in the new The MTS component has been abandoned, only the component remains. Perhaps ir rightly so. The Physics Terms Commission, considering these matters, noted that in all Lithuanian dictionaries (even in school books) is a good sounding Lithuanian word sandas, which just means the component of 28 someone, therefore suggests using it as a term for technicians, chemists, and lysis, and mathematicians instead of component component ir (or at least next to the Lithuanian jų equivalent). Such a short sounding term would easily acquire rapidly ir spread. There is no compatibility between the physics and mathematics of the terms image and image usage. In everyday language, there is no strict boundary between concepts. tų In physics, an image is usually used to describe the object itself, an image to the o secondary, formed by — jo the reflection of light passing through an ar optical device (lens, binoculars, camera, ir etc.). During the preparation of the FTŽ, in consultation with the representatives of the Mathematical Terms Commission, the group theory ir concepts describing certain representatives of groups (Russian: npedemage/1enue, English: representation) were named images. But that was almost a year ago. 20 Preparing MTZ, the opinion of mathematicians on this term, apparently, has changed. Now MTZ those groups “images” separated from other images (Russian). omo6pa>xenue, angl. mapping). This is quite a logical step in terms of unambiguity of ir content and ir terms. Just a pity it wasn't to done earlier, before the release FTŽ. Now it will take a considerable effort to help until these terms are mastered by physicists. It remained unclear how to call Tourier ir Laplace o images (transformantes), which are very necessary for physicists, 0 MTZ does not have them. Welcome separation of images from images ir (Russian). o0pas, angl. image). But here everythine ng can be agreed. For example, if the reflection of an object in a mirror is called a mirror image, then it is completely incomprehensible what is an image. In Visio, the mirror image is the main example of imagery. Hardly in ar mathematics can the term have any other meaning. There are words that, being used as terms in different branches of science, have different meanings. For example, the module in physics is used to describe some deformation (or evaluate), in technology it means a certain part of the structure of the device, in mathematics ar 0 (as it appears) iš The MTA has also other functions. Vienna iš jų — the ar absolute magnitude of the other magnitude of the number. It is only incomprehensible why the terms absolute magnitude of the number and number modulus are presented separately in two slots without reference from one to 29 the other. In order to avoid the ambiguity of the term module, physicists use only the absolute magnitude of the number or the absolute value of the magnitude when referring to a dimensional quantity measured in physical units. More minor ambiguities or inconsistencies can be mentioned, especially with regard to new terms. Here are some examples. What is the difference between estimation and value, relation and junction, destiny and residue, mathematician’s stack and physicist’s cohesion (especially when the equivalents in other languages are the same)? Why the swernian factor, but not the centre of the function (or curve)? (In physics, a body's gravity is the force by which the Earth attracts that body.) Why is the Lithuanian propulsor (not used by physicists) compared with the Russian nepenoc (phys. pémasa) and English translation (fig. hair loss)? In order to eliminate the ambiguities mentioned and not mentioned here, or to clarify the ambiguities, it would be necessary to know the definitions of all those terms, and this is already a matter of explanatory glossaries. Now it would be desirable to provide definitions of at least the most unclear, especially new, terms in some mathematical or Lithuanian language publication. I think it would be useful to discuss the common use of close physics-mathematics terms in common meetings of physics-mathematics ar terms commissions, ir at least to invite ir jų representatives of other commissions to their meetings. ir į There seems to be a slight difference in the position of the ir mathematics and physics terminology commissions į on the use of ir international Lithuanian terms. Although mathematicians, when compiling MTZ, more boldly ir created proposed more new Lithuanian terms than physicists, preparing FTZ, however, they rarely prefer a į non-physical Lithuanian term to an gu international one. This is particularly true of composite (species) terms. In most cases, only the international term is suggested, although there is a fairly good Lithuanian equivalent, perhaps even already in use. For example, international adjectives (species indicators) are provided: efektyvusis, ekvivalentusis, globalusis, homogeninis, horizontalusis, localusis, maksimalusis, minimalusis, specifinis, stacionarusis, vertikalusis, etc., even without adding the Lithuanian equivalents (synonyms) efektyvusis, ekvivalentus (equivalent), ir visuotinis (or worldwide), homogeneous, laying, local, small-growing, peculiar, standing, vertical, etc. ir Some international 30 words have begun to play a parasitic role in Lithuanian — language ar and have already iš displaced the good words of our language. For example, it can be said that the international horizontal, vertical has already displaced the Lithuanian me gulsčiūsis, stačiūsis. The younger generation does not even know the meaning, jų confusing the words oblique su and vertical, although these Lithuanian words were widely used in ir society and school for a po long time before the war. ir ir vo Some international terms are used ambiguously, since unambiguity is the most important quality of a good term. o For example, optimal is used in the senses of “best”, “most favorable”, “most suitable”, “most convenient”, etc. ; ir structurtira used (at least physicists) senses “sandara”, “darinys”, “junginys”, “bandinys”, although in all dictionaries it is ji indicated only as a synonym of the Lithuanian word sandara. The Physics Terms Commission follows the principle that if there is a good Lithuanian term, then it should be ir given preference, o ne (or at least to be used in parallel with internationalsu ), especially in popular school texts. ir We suggest that mathematicians, terminologists ir of other ir disciplines and users should follow this principle everywhere. 31