"No Spam Mapson" wrote:
>>>>>>>> The OED cites the following use of metric as a noun:
>>>>>>>> 1921 Proc. R. Soc. A. XCIX. 104 "In the non-Euclidean
>>>>>>>> geometry of Riemann, the metric is defined by certain quantities ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A good example of bad usage: *what* metric, *what* quantities?
>>>>>>> The reader should not be left hanging with those questions unanswered.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not bad usage at all. In mathematics, the word
>>>>>> "metric" as a noun refers to a general type of distance,
>>>>>> not necessarily the type in common use.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is certainly bad usage, for the following reason: the phrase,
>>>>> "the metric", implies that there is *one* metric function on
>>>>> Riemannian geometry, which is false. This reason has nothing
>>>>> to do with distance measure in general, as commonly understood,
>>>>> or otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> It is not bad usage, because a PARTICULAR Riemannian
>>>> geometry is given by a particular metric; in fact, by the
>>>> local quadratic form defining the differential metric.
>>>
>>> It *is* bad usage, because it requires the type of exegesis you
>>> have just provided to make it meaningful.
>>
>>Statisticians, of course, always use completely unambiguous terminology
>
> This is not about terminology; this is about usage.
>
No, this is about setting the world record for the longest string of
">"s.
-Robert Dawson
=================================================================
Instructions for joining and leaving this list and remarks about
the problem of INAPPROPRIATE MESSAGES are available at
http://jse.stat.ncsu.edu/
=================================================================
