fenics team mailing list archive

[Anders Logg <logg@xxxxxxxxx>]

ok. I guess I didn't trust the Australian well enough. :-)

--
Anders


On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 11:59:08AM -0700, Ridgway Scott wrote:
> It is a small point of the English language that allows a title to
> be shorter
> than what you would say in a phrase. You would say "now we study
> THE Poisson equation" but the formal title is shorter. For example, I
> think the formal title is University of Chicago, whereas it is The
> University
> of Michigan. Titles can be jarring, such as the Art Institute of Chicago
> (which should instead be the Chicago Institute of Art) or the one I
> created: the Computation Institute (which many people called the
> Computational Institute for a long time).
>
> So Poisson Equation is a fine title, but other terms are equally valid.
>
> Ridg
>
> On Aug 31, 2010, at 7:15 AM, Anders Logg wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 03:07:32PM +0100, Garth N. Wells wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>On 31/08/10 15:04, Anders Logg wrote:
> >>>"Poisson equation" sounds strange to me. Shouldn't it be either
> >>>"Poisson's equation", "The Poisson equation", or "A Poisson
> >>>equation"?
> >>>
> >>
> >>"Poisson equation" is commonly used.
> >
> >I've never seen it and think it looks strange.
> >
> >>So is "Poisson's equation", but we
> >>don't use "Stokes'", "Cahn-Hilliard's", "Navier-Stokes'", etc.
> >>It's not
> >>"A", because there is only one.
> >
> >I don't use "Navier-Stokes' equations". I write "the Navier-Stokes
> >equations" to get around that.
> >
>

--
Anders