My expertise is in math &amp; science, not grammar.  For mathematicians, 'thus' is generally seen as a synonym for 'therefore'.  If I were to write, "The equation should be written thus:", most would tend to interpret this as "The equation should be written therefore:". On the other hand, if I were to write, "The equation should be written thusly:", this would be interpreted as "The equation should be written as follows:".  In this case, is 'thus' still considered preferable to 'thusly'?  This is now just a matter of curiosity since I think I've already decided to replace 'thusly' with 'as follows'.
17786
I read an article that used "thusly" and was wondering if there is any grammatical credence to it.   The :     The issue started when Sokolowski quickly ran out of storage capacity in his 32GB Surface after adding media files. After poking around, he realized that while the device has a 32GB drive, only 16GB of that capacity is available for users’ data. Thusly Microsoft is being sued for false advertisement, with the suit seeking class action status.   Is thusly an outmoded form of thus, or does it have a different meaning altogether?
51755
Some students write, e.g., "$\sum(1/n^2)$ converges at $\pi^2/6$", where I would write "converges to".  Are there regions of the English-speaking world where it is standard to say "converges at"? Or should this be considered a mistake made by non-native speakers of English?
64102
When it comes to losing weight, a quick fix to would be nice, but we   know there’s no such [a] thing. ()   It sounds like there isn’t ‘a’ in the news. So I wonder if it be right when there is no ‘a’ after ‘such.’ Would it be okay?
1024
In the summey of my physics paper, for a scientific journal, in the start of a new paragraph in the discussion, what is more correct to write?   "We have showed that" the system obeys this and that rules,   or:   "We have shown that"...   or simply:    "We showed that"...?   Thanks!
11407
I want to ask a question whose meaning is "what is the exact way in which X works?". Where is the most appropriate place for the adverb "exactly"?   How exactly does X work? How does exactly X work? How does X exactly work? How does X work exactly?
84198
I always say "mathematics is funny" (ok, maybe many of you disagree about the adjective), but then I noticed that "mathematics" seems to be a plural, like the Greek word from which it derives.   Am I correct in using the verb in singular form? And are there other words like this one?
94045
I think most folk happily use either "while" or "whilst". I've a vague recollection that at one time "while" indicated the passing of time and "whilst" was essentially the same as "whereas" or "although".  So using while for time passing...     While I was walking down the street the sun was shining.   ... and whilst for whereas/although...     Whilst I was walking down the street I often prefer to hop.   Any views?
10569
My friend and I got into an argument about English grammar, so I was hoping maybe you could help us out. Okay so we want to know if the following part of the sentence is correct, "People who are satisfied and feel self-fulfilled like I" rather than "People who are satisfied and feel self-fulfilled like me". I have already provided many sources to my friend showing that the first way is a formal and a grammatically correct way, however he wants an answer with this specific part of the sentence.   Please help us out  Thank you
87884
I have a mathematical proposition of the form "If $A$, then $B$". I'm thinking about this problem from several different perspectives, so I will segment these different perspectives into separate paragraphs as follows.   If I have a statement $A \implies B$ that is true by definition (no proof provided), is it then correct to say that the contrapositive statement $\neg B \implies \neg A$ (NOT $B \implies$ NOT $A$) must also be true, without providing any proof?  In other words, if $A \implies B$ that is true by definition, then does this imply that the contrapositive statement $\neg B \implies \neg A$ is also true by definition? Trying to think of this from the perspective of logic notation and truth tables, would it be correct to write that $(A \implies B) \implies (\neg B \implies \neg A)$? This way, since we know that $A \implies B$ is true, we must logically have (according to truth tables) that $\neg B \implies \neg A$ is also true, right?   I would greatly appreciate it if people would please take the time to clarify this.
24856
My non-native English speaking friend just asked me: "Data is..." or "Data are..."?  I said both but that's because I've been desensitized from reading/writing both (especially from writing code and adding quick comments).  My question: Is it acceptable to utilize either for a university paper? Or is one safer than the other (when confronted with stickler professors)?    Related questions:
58432
I'm writing a resume right now targeted towards a specific company. My girlfriend (a classmate) and I were (see, I don't know if that's the right word, hence this question!) the first from our school to be awarded a scholarship from this company.  Is it more correct to say:     Awarded such and such scholarship in 2011. A classmate and I were the first students from my college to be awarded this scholarship.   Or:     Awarded such and such scholarship in 2011. A classmate and I was the first students from my college to be awarded this scholarship.   The first seems much more correct when spoken, but the rule I've been taught is to take the other person out and use the words that make sense about just you.
51209
In the following sentence I'm not sure where to put implicitly:     The language doesn't support Int and (implicitly) converts (implicitly) Int to Double (implicitly).   First I put it at the end, because I learned:     The man drove the car carefully.   But somehow it sounds strange: converts Int to Double implicitly.  Most natural to my ears is implicitly at position two so I would place it there, although comparing  to  indicate to put it at the first place (Same for converts (with s)). But most Google hits show its use with cannot, should, ..., so I'm unsure which one is correct in my example above.  Which one is correct and why?
107203
I am writing a subordinate clause in the "Related Work" section of my academic paper. Which is correct?     In [1], Smith et al. pointed out that the solution is feasible.   OR     In [1], Smith et al. pointed out that the solution was feasible.   I am quite confused.  On the one hand, I remember clearly the verb tense in the "that" clause should follow that of the verb in the main sentence. Hence, "was" should be used, following "pointed".  On the other hand, Smith's work is always there and always thinks that the solution is feasible. Hence, the present tense should be used.  Which reasoning is correct?  (NOTE: The OP is asking if it is obligatory that the "is" verb is backshifted into "was", or if backshifting is not allowed, or if backshifting is optional. -- F.E.)
57768
We could have written = as "equals", + as "plus", $\exists$ as "thereExists" and so on. Supplemented with some brackets everything would be just as precise.   $$\exists x,y,z,n \in \mathbb{N}: n&gt;2 \land x^n+y^n=z^n$$  could equally be written as:  ThereExists x,y,z,n from theNaturalNumbers suchThat       n isGreaterThan 2 and x toThePower n plus y toThePower n equals z toThePower n   What is the reason that we write these words as symbols (almost like a Chinese word system?)  Is it for brevity? Clarity? Can our visual system process it better?   Because not only do we have to learn the symbols, in order to understand it we have to say the real meaning in our heads.  If algebra and logic had been invented in Japan or China, might the symbols actually have just been the words themselves?  It almost seems like for each symbol there should be an equivalent word-phrase that it corresponds to that is accepted.
17732
I never really gave a deep thought at this but recently a teacher of talked about language and there was an implicit question in it. something like  there is a difference between "rather than" and "instead of" in usage. do you know it??  please help and explain with a few examples.
22983
A book suggests that we should not interchange "so" and "so that". "So" means "therefore", and "so that" means "in order that". However, it seems to me that in many cases they don't actually have a difference. For example:     Alice got up at 5:00 A.M., so that she could drive her son to school.   If I substitute "so that" with "so", this sentence presents the exact same causal relation to me:     Alice got up at 5:00 A.M., so she could drive her son to school.   I must have missed something here, since English is my second language. Could somebody explain the difference?
49638
, a question exists regarding the usage of the word "that" in the following sentences:   Assume that A = B. Assume A = B.   A well-known author suggests that users elect Option 1 in mathematical writing.  A discussion arose whether or not Option 1 is perfectly acceptable usage of the subjunctive, with a caveat: that the glyph "=" be read "equal" and not "equals."  The author of the book in question also further suggested that the word "that" be used only if it helps parse a sentence, "Assume that A is a group" vs. "Assume A is a group." This point was less contended, but in the subjunctive discussion, contrary concerns also arose whether the usage "Assume A be a group" is correct archaically, is correct presently, or has never been correct at all.  First question: given that "Assume..." is functionally equivalent to necessity in mathematical writing, is the sentence "Assume that A equal B" a proper use of the subjunctive?  Second question: Is, or has ever been, the usage "Assume that A be a group" been proper conjugation of "is" in a properly-used subjunctive?  Third question: Is there anything structurally unsavory about the use of the conjunction "that" in the form "Assume that A equals B" (note the s)?