Efficient John's equation for car simulation.

condedelaumbria

New Member
Spanish
Hi all,

I would like to express in the title of an article that I am developing a new (efficient) version of an equation, specifically John's equation, which I will use in the simulation of cars. I don't know which one of these titles sounds better in a scientific-technical context:

-An efficient form of John's equation for car simulation.
-An efficient variant of John's equation for car simulation.
-Efficient John's equation for car simulation.

Especially I would like to know if the last one is grammatically correct, cause joining an adjective and a possesive sounds a little weird to me.
Thank you in advance.

Regards,
Alfonso
 
  • sdgraham

    Senior Member
    USA English
    If the person to whom you refer is named "Efficient John" or you are stressing that it's John rather than the equation that's efficient, the sentence is quite acceptable.

    If not, well you see the problem.
     

    entangledbank

    Senior Member
    English - South-East England
    If the equation's name is well known in the field, then the third form should be okay. I can't think of any real examples to check, but I can invent ones that sound okay to me:

    Amended Boyle's Law for non-uniform gases
    Normalized Euler's constant in quantum simulations
    Crushed Condy's crystals as a thermal insulator
     

    condedelaumbria

    New Member
    Spanish
    Yes, those are good examples indeed. I guess the 3rd one is right then.
    Another thing sometimes confuses me is the 's form and the one without it. For example you'd sometimes see "Euler angles" and not "Euler's angles"...
     

    sdgraham

    Senior Member
    USA English
    Yes, those are good examples indeed. I guess the 3rd one is right then.
    I guess you didn't get the point that it's ambiguous as are the other examples.

    The problem arises when some people in a particular field are so immersed in a subject that they are unable to recognize the ambiguity of an expression, particularly when read by people outside the closed group.

    Note that ETB's response above specified "in the field."

    Good editors are trained to catch these things. (Which is why editors are not particularly beloved ;))

    In English, we have devices to remove ambiguities. Consider, for example, the following:

    Crushed Condy's crystals as a thermal insulator
    To the uninitiated, it could be read as some poor guy named Condy was crushed and his crystallized remains are being used for thermal insulation.

    Compare that to the following:

    Crushed "Condy's crystals" as a thermal insulator
    Crushed Condy's crystals as a thermal insulator
     
    Last edited:

    condedelaumbria

    New Member
    Spanish
    Hahaha, yes, sdgraham, poor Condy can be in danger without the quotation marks... especially if this is read out of the scientific field.
    As "John's equation" isn't so known even in the field, I may consider using the first one: An efficient form of John's equation for car simulation.

    Thanks a lot for your orientations.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top