---

I have a short Danish page http://www.motionmountain.net/danish.html
introducing my freely downloadable physics textbook,
but the text seems to be full of errors, I was told. (The person
has no time to help, though.) Could somebody help me to correct it?
The English original is http://www.motionmountain.net/welcome.html
This would probably not take much more than 15 minutes.

Thank you in advance for your help!

Christoph Schiller

---

Hello Christoph

> but the text seems to be full of errors, I was told. (The person
> has no time to help, though.) Could somebody help me to correct it?

No reason to correct anything on that page, no obvious errors
as far as I can judge by reading it.

Best regards Max

---

Max skrev:
> Hello Christoph
>
>> but the text seems to be full of errors, I was told. (The person
>> has no time to help, though.) Could somebody help me to correct it?
>
> No reason to correct anything on that page, no obvious errors
> as far as I can judge by reading it.

"Er universet et sæt?".

What does "sæt" mean in this context?


"Dette websted stiller en fysikbog, der fortæller historien om,
hvordan det efter 2500 års udforskning blev muligt at besvare
sådanne "spørgsmål, gratis til rådighed.

I'd split this sentence in two.


"Kernen af hver af disse forskningsområder opsummeres på den enklest
mulige måde; det vises hvordan de hver er baseret på ideerne om mindst
mulig entropi, højest mulig hastighed, størst mulig kraft, mindst mulig
ladningsændring og mindst mulig bevægelse."

->

"Kernen af disse forskningsområder opsummeres på den enklest mulige
måde; det vises hvordan de hver især er baseret på ideerne om mindst
mulig entropi, højest mulig hastighed, størst mulig kraft, mindst mulig
ladningsændring og mindst mulig bevægelse."


Btw - consider posting the same question in dk.kultur.sprog.

--
Jens Axel Søgaard

---

"Full of errors" is a gross exaggeration.

Here a few suggestions for minor changes:


Er universet et sæt?
>
I have no idea what this means and the English version doesn't help. A set
of ??


Dette websted stiller en fysikbog, der fortæller historien om, hvordan det
efter 2500 års udforskning blev muligt at besvare sådanne
spørgsmål, gratis til rådighed
>
Dette websted stiller gratis en fysikbog til rådighed, der fortæller
historien om, hvordan det efter 2500 års udforskning blev muligt at besvare
sådanne spørgsmål.


kvante teorien
>
kvanteteorien


ideerne
>
idéerne


interesseret i eksakt beskrivelse
>
interesseret i en eksakt beskrivelse


<chri_schiller@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151137347.257227.184530@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
> I have a short Danish page http://www.motionmountain.net/danish.html
> introducing my freely downloadable physics textbook,
> but the text seems to be full of errors, I was told. (The person
> has no time to help, though.) Could somebody help me to correct it?
> The English original is http://www.motionmountain.net/welcome.html
> This would probably not take much more than 15 minutes.
>
> Thank you in advance for your help!
>
> Christoph Schiller
>

---

chri_schiller@yahoo.com skrev:

> I have a short Danish page http://www.motionmountain.net/danish.html
> introducing my freely downloadable physics textbook,
> but the text seems to be full of errors, I was told.

It is not! It has got a few errors that others have offered their
solution to, but as a whole it is not bad.

In the newsgroup <dk.kultur.sprog> we discuss all sorts of
language questions and translation is one such area.

--
Bertel
http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/      http://fiduso.dk/

---

Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
> "Er universet et sæt?".
>
> What does "sæt" mean in this context?

The original is meant to mean "mathematical set".
What should it be in Danish?

>
>
> "Dette websted stiller en fysikbog, der fortæller historien om,
> hvordan det efter 2500 års udforskning blev muligt at besvare
> sådanne "spørgsmål, gratis til rådighed.
>
> I'd split this sentence in two.

Could you do it for me?

Cheers

Christoph

---

chri_schiller@yahoo.com skrev:
> Jens Axel Søgaard wrote:
>> "Er universet et sæt?".
>>
>> What does "sæt" mean in this context?
>
> The original is meant to mean "mathematical set".
> What should it be in Danish?

That would be "Er universet en mængde?". But, well, that question makes
sense in neither language.


>> "Dette websted stiller en fysikbog, der fortæller historien om,
>> hvordan det efter 2500 års udforskning blev muligt at besvare
>> sådanne "spørgsmål, gratis til rådighed.
>>
>> I'd split this sentence in two.
>
> Could you do it for me?

Either

Dette websted er en fysikbog, som fortæller historien om,
hvordan det efter 2500 års udforskning blev muligt, at besvare
disse spørgsmål.

Bogen stilles gratis til rådighed, og er skrevet, så hver eneste side
er underholdende, overraskende og udfordrende. Teksten udforsker
med sparsom anvendelse af matematik de mest fascinerende dele
af mekanikken, termodynamikken, den specielle og generelle
relativitet, elektrodynamikken, kvanteteorien
og moderne forsøg på at forene disse.

or

Dette websted er en gratis fysikbog, som fortæller historien om,
hvordan det efter 2500 års udforskning blev muligt, at besvare
disse spørgsmål.

Bogen er skrevet, så hver eneste side er underholdende, overraskende
og udfordrende. Teksten udforsker med sparsom anvendelse af matematik
de mest fascinerende dele af mekanikken, termodynamikken, den
specielle og generelle relativitet, elektrodynamikken, kvanteteorien
og moderne forsøg på at forene disse.



The original english text is here:

How do objects and images move? Why do animals move? What is motion?

How does a rainbow form? Is levitation possible? Do time machines exist?
What does 'quantum' mean? What is the maximum force value found in
nature? Is 'empty space' really empty? Is the universe a set? Which
problems in physics are still unsolved?

This site publishes a free physics textbook that tells the story of how
it became possible, after 2500 years of exploration, to answer such
questions. The book is written to be entertaining, surprising and
challenging on every page. With little mathematics, the text explores
the most fascinating parts of mechanics, thermodynamics, special and
general relativity, electrodynamics, quantum theory and modern attempts
at unification. The essence of these fields is summarized in the most
simple terms: it is shown how they are based on the notions of minimum
entropy, maximum speed, maximum force, minimum change of charge and
minimum action.

The text explores the limits of time and space, and the wonders that can
be discovered there. Written in English, its over 1200 pages are
provided for students, teachers, and for anybody who is interested in
the precise description of nature.

For each field of physics, the latest research results, the most
interesting physical puzzles and the most telling physical curiosities
are presented. More than 1600 challenges and over 500 illustrations and
tables are included.


--
Jens Axel Søgaard

---

Uffe Kousgaard wrote:
> "Full of errors" is a gross exaggeration.

Thank you for the help.

Set is used to mean "mathematical set" in this
context.

Cheers


Christoph

---

<chri_schiller@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1151150207.660248.123790@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Set is used to mean "mathematical set" in this
> context.

OK, but it won't be obvious to very many what you mean unless you are
mathematically oriented, which you later state is hardly needed. Looking at
the Swedish translation it says something like "is the universe static".

Another one is "levitation". I'm not familiar with that word, but the
Swedish translation made it clear. You can write "Er det muligt at svæve"
instead of "Er levitation mulig".

Regards
Uffe

---

Uffe Kousgaard skrev:

> Another one is "levitation". I'm not familiar with that word, but the
> Swedish translation made it clear. You can write "Er det muligt at svæve"
> instead of "Er levitation mulig".

I agree - "svæve" is much better than "levitation".

--
Jens Axel Søgaard

---

Jens Axel Søgaard skrev:

> I agree - "svæve" is much better than "levitation".

I do not agree. You can svæve in a glider, while "levitation"
immediately suggests a mysterious action where a body is lifted
with no outer help. "Levitation" gives 2000 hits on Google
(Danish pages).

--
Bertel
http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/      http://fiduso.dk/

---

Bertel Lund Hansen skrev:
> Jens Axel Søgaard skrev:
>
>> I agree - "svæve" is much better than "levitation".
>
> I do not agree. You can svæve in a glider, while "levitation"
> immediately suggests a mysterious action where a body is lifted
> with no outer help. "Levitation" gives 2000 hits on Google
> (Danish pages).

It might not have exactly the same meaning, but I think
it sends the wrong message if people need the dictionary to
read the welcome paragraph.

--
Jens Axel Søgaard

---

"Uffe Kousgaard" <oh@no.no> wrote:

>Another one is "levitation". I'm not familiar with that word, but the
>Swedish translation made it clear. You can write "Er det muligt at svæve"
>instead of "Er levitation mulig".

"Kan tyngdekraften ophæves"
"Kan man omgå tyngdekraften"
"Kan man slippe for tyngdekraften"


--
Med venlig hilsen, Ove Kjeldgaard, nospam AT privat DOT dk
Natur og Friluftsliv: <http://hiker.dk>

---

chri_schiller@yahoo.com wrote:
> Uffe Kousgaard wrote:
>
>>"Full of errors" is a gross exaggeration.
>
> Thank you for the help.
>
> Set is used to mean "mathematical set" in this
> context.

I find it odd to even ask such question, since a set is an abstract,
mathematical construct and the universe is something tangible. If this
is supposed to be a textbook for students, asking if such two terms are
equivalent, will confuse the reader. I'd be thinking: the answer is so
obvious that there must be something I haven't understood. Some subtle,
deeper meaning behind this seemingly innocent question.

If the intention is to make the reader consider the kind of abstract
models one can make of the universe, I'd suggest asking "Is it possbile
to model the universe with a set?" or something similar.

Regards,

Michael.
--
Which is more dangerous? TV guided missiles or TV guided families?
I am less likely to answer usenet postings by anonymous authors.
Visit my home page at http://michael.zedeler.dk/

---

Jens Axel Søgaard, and others. provided many corrections.

I have put a corrected Danish version on

http://www.motionmountain.net/danish.html

If this is ok, I'll leave it, except if there are clear mistakes.
I am thinking of changing one question to :
"Is the universe a set of particles?"
However, the question is less interesting in this way.
I hope that the date (which should also be in Danish,
is correct as "25 juni 2006")

Thank you for you all (my Danish is clearly improving ..

Christoph Schiller


> The original english text is here:
>
> How do objects and images move? Why do animals move? What is motion?
>
> How does a rainbow form? Is levitation possible? Do time machines exist?
> What does 'quantum' mean? What is the maximum force value found in
> nature? Is 'empty space' really empty? Is the universe a set? Which
> problems in physics are still unsolved?
>
> This site publishes a free physics textbook that tells the story of how
> it became possible, after 2500 years of exploration, to answer such
> questions. The book is written to be entertaining, surprising and
> challenging on every page. With little mathematics, the text explores
> the most fascinating parts of mechanics, thermodynamics, special and
> general relativity, electrodynamics, quantum theory and modern attempts
> at unification. The essence of these fields is summarized in the most
> simple terms: it is shown how they are based on the notions of minimum
> entropy, maximum speed, maximum force, minimum change of charge and
> minimum action.
>
> The text explores the limits of time and space, and the wonders that can
> be discovered there. Written in English, its over 1200 pages are
> provided for students, teachers, and for anybody who is interested in
> the precise description of nature.
>
> For each field of physics, the latest research results, the most
> interesting physical puzzles and the most telling physical curiosities
> are presented. More than 1600 challenges and over 500 illustrations and
> tables are included.
>
>
> --
> Jens Axel Søgaard

---

<chri_schiller@yahoo.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1151227965.700942.94770@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com
> http://www.motionmountain.net/danish.html

Fine, but:

Not "indenfor fysikken"
but "inden for fysikken" (twice in the text!)

Not "Teksten er på engelsk og alle dens over 1200 sider, stilles...":
but "Teksten er på engelsk, og alle dens 1200 sider stilles..."
- comma after "engelsk", *NOT* after "stilles".

"Teksten afsøger grænserne for tid og rum og de vidundere som kan opdages
der" - is not quite clear. Do you mean: afsøger grænserne for tid og rum og
omtaler (diskutiert) de vidundere ...?
Or: Afsøger den grænserne for tid og rum og vidunderne? In German this would
be: Der Text erkundet die Grenzen von Raum und Zeit und von den Wundern die
dort etc. - and that is not what you mean (I think).
I see nearly identical problems in your German and Swedish versions of this
small passage.

Poul Erik J.
--
Erstat "invalid" med dk hvis du svarer per e-mail.
Replace "invalid" with dk when replying by e-mail.

---

"Poul Erik Jørgensen" <33@gvdnet.invalid> skrev i en meddelelse
news:b263f$449e647d$5630134a$22039@news.jay.net
> I see nearly identical problems in your German and Swedish versions
> of this small passage.

-. and in the Norwegian version.

But the Latin version is clear:
spatii temporisque fines explorantur et miracula, quae ubique detegi
possunt.

Explorantur - two things:
1. fines spatii temporisque
2. miracula quae ...

The Danish version says in Latin: explorantur fines spatii et temporis et
miraculorum ...

PEJ
--
Erstat "invalid" med dk hvis du svarer per e-mail.
Replace "invalid" with dk when replying by e-mail.

---

"Poul Erik Jørgensen" <33@gvdnet.invalid> skrev i en meddelelse
news:888df$449e6785$5630134a$26423@news.jay.net...
> "Poul Erik Jørgensen" <33@gvdnet.invalid> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:b263f$449e647d$5630134a$22039@news.jay.net
>> I see nearly identical problems in your German and Swedish versions
>> of this small passage.
>
> -. and in the Norwegian version.
>
> But the Latin version is clear:
> spatii temporisque fines explorantur et miracula, quae ubique detegi
> possunt.
>
> Explorantur - two things:
> 1. fines spatii temporisque
> 2. miracula quae ...
>
> The Danish version says in Latin: explorantur fines spatii et temporis et
> miraculorum ...

Nu blærer du dig vist bare. Respekt. :)

- Martin

---

chri_schiller@yahoo.com skrev:

> [...] I hope that the date (which should also be in Danish,
> is correct as "25 juni 2006")

With 'date' in that form: "25. juni 2006"

--
Herluf

---

chri_schiller@yahoo.com skrev:

> Thank you for you all (my Danish is clearly improving ..

Had you made the previous translation yourself?

Krydspostet til: <news:dk.videnskab>,<news:dk.kultur.sprog>

--
Bertel
http://bertel.lundhansen.dk/      http://fiduso.dk/

---

Michael Zedeler wrote:
> "Is it possbile to model the universe with a set?"

Yes, this was what I meant; but the other formulation
"Is the universe a set?" is more striking. (By the way,
the answer is "no", and explained in detail in the text.)

Thank you all for all the corrections. I just uploaded the
newest version on http://www.motionmountain.net/danish.html
It should be ok now, I guess. (And no, the original translation
was not done by myself.)

Thank you again

Christoph Schiller

---

chri_schiller@yahoo.com wrote:
> Michael Zedeler wrote:
> > "Is it possbile to model the universe with a set?"
>
> Yes, this was what I meant; but the other formulation
> "Is the universe a set?" is more striking. (By the way,
> the answer is "no", and explained in detail in the text.)

I tried looking and I did not find it. Do you have page reference? Do
you think of the intermezzo on brains and set theory? I think that it
is important to note that the word universe has different meanings in
set theory and physics. The latest introduction of the book asks

Is the universe a set of particles?

However wikipedia (the eternal source of knowledge) gives the following
definition of a the word universe in set theory:

In mathematics, and particularly in applications to set theory and the
foundations of mathematics, a universe or universal class (or if a set,
universal set) is, roughly speaking, a class that is large enough to
contain (in some sense) all of the sets that one may wish to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_set

Apart from this possible mistake, the book looks nice and readable, but
perhaps it is a little tough for small kids.

Niels

---

Niels L Ellegaard wrote:
> > "Is the universe a set?" is more striking. (By the way,
> > the answer is "no", and explained in detail in the text.)
>
> I tried looking and I did not find it. Do you have page reference?

The issue is discussed on pages 1093-1096.

Christoph