Editing Guide to technical writing (section)

==Words that are commonly misused==
Here are some words in technical papers that commonly confuse people. Watch out for these cases.

===Passed or past?===
In English these two words are confusing because they are pronounced exactly the same, but the meaning is different and they can be used in similar contexts. "Passed" is the pass tense of the verb "pass," whereas "past" indicates going by.  So how do we check if we've made the right choice of word in our technical writing? Take these two examples:

* The voltage went past the maximum limit and the transistor overheated.

* The voltage passed the maximum limit and the transistor overheated.

The trick is to put them in the future tense (in your mind) and see what happens:

* The voltage will go past the maximum limit and the transistor will overheat.

* The voltage will pass the maximum limit and the transistor will overheat.

Notice that changing from past to future leaves the word "past" unchanged, but "passed" changes to "pass." This is how to tell if you got them the right way around.

===Which or that?===
When you are speaking "which" and "that" are interchangeable.  This is not true for writing. The rules for using "which" and "that" in writing are as follows:
* Never insert a comma before the word "that."  If you need a comma then remove "that" and replace it with "which."
* When the part of a sentence after "which" is explaining something about the sentence before the "which" then there is a comma before the "which." All other uses of "which" don't have a comma before them.

If you ever forget whether it is "that" or "which" that should not have a comma before it, a memory aid is to notice "which" has a "c" in it.
"That" has no "c" in it and think of "c" as standing for "comma."   So there is no "c" in "that" therefore no comma.   Take these two examples:

* The transistor has a negatively doped source and drain, which ensures electrons flow in the channel.
* The transistor has a negatively doped source and drain that ensures electrons flow in the channel.
* The transistor has a negatively doped source and drain to which electrons flow.

In the first example, the "which" has a comma before it, because the words after the "which" are explanatory. In the second example, the "that" obeys the no-comma rule. In the third example, "which" is making a statement not an explanation and there is no comma. Another way to think of the third example is the phrase "to which" is self-contained and can't be split by a comma.

In the following example, the sentence structure forces use of commas so we can't use "that" and we are forced to use "which" by default:

* The ultrafast microprocessor chip, which has a large power consumption, needs an adequate power supply.

===Resonance frequency or resonant frequency?===
"Frequency" is a noun, "resonance" is a noun, and "resonant" is an adjective.  An adjective describes a noun. If we say "resonant frequency" then we are describing the frequency with an adjective. But "resonant" is the description of the circuit, not the frequency.  So the correct expression is "resonance frequency" which is a compound noun.   So the whole expression is the name of the type of frequency.   

Another example, to show what we have said makes sense is to consider the two nouns "fire" and "fly" (as in an insect).  Putting the two together is then the name of a type of fly called the "fire fly."   Notice we are not trying to describe the fly as being on fire, so we are not using any adjectives here. We are using two nouns and this is a compound noun that names the type of fly. This explains why "resonant frequency" is wrong, and "resonance frequency" is right.

Now I often forget myself, so a good trick to remember is to note that "resonance frequency" can be interchanged to "frequency of resonance," which means the same thing. But if you were to incorrectly say "resonant frequency," the interchange to "frequency of resonant" of course sounds completely wrong.

===Incidence angle or incident angle?===
By analogy with the above argument for "resonance frequency," the correct term is "incidence angle."  It is the electromagnetic radiation that is "incident" upon a surface not the angle itself.  So the compound noun "incidence angle" is the name of the angle.

Again, "incidence angle" can interchanged to "angle of incidence."   But if you were to say "incident angle", the interchange to "angle of incident" sounds completely wrong.  So this is the quick way to remember this.

===Antennas or antennae?===
In electrical engineering, the plural of 'antenna' is 'antennas,' and not 'antennae.'   Antennae are the little things on the heads of insects.

A quick way to remember this, if you forget, is to think of the famous journal ''IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation.''  Now, if in your mind you switch this to ''IEEE Transactions on Antennae and Propagation,'' it sounds awful.

===Neural or neuronal?===
Strictly speaking, 'neural' relates to the nervous system, whereas 'neuronal' refers specifically to neurons. The nervous system does indeed contain neurons, but when specifically talking about neurons and you need an adjective always try to use 'neuronal' wherever possible.  However, when the force of tradition has made a phrase mainstream, such as 'neural networks,' when referring to artificial networks of neurons, it is better to stick to what is commonly used.

===Effect or affect?===
Think of 'effect' (noun) as a phenomenon and 'affect' (verb) as an influence.  Then you won't get confused.  A trick for determining if you have used the correct word, is to replace it with the word with 'influence' in your mind. If the sentence still makes sense then 'affect' is needed. If the sentence sounds wrong then insert 'effect.'

:'''Example when 'affect' is correct:'''  The voltage affects current...     →    The voltage influences current... (sounds correct)
:'''Example when 'effect' is correct:'''  The Kerr effect...     →    The Kerr influence... (sounds wrong)

===Envision or envisage?===
They both mean the same thing, and mean to visualize or imagine. 'Envisage' is more common in British writing and 'envision' is more common in American writing.  Use whichever suits your audience.

===Cochlea or cochlear?===
'Cochlea' is a noun that describes a part of the ear. 'Cochlear' is an adjective as in 'cochlear implant,' for example. What makes them a little confusing is that they are both pronounced the same!

===Readout or read out?===
'Readout' is a noun; but 'read out' describes an action. They are pronounced differently when spoken. Here are examples of their use:

:'''Read out:'''  The data is read out of the computer.  [Note: pronunciation is 'red out'].
:'''Readout:'''   The readout circuitry is designed to create a serial data stream.  [Note: pronunciation is 'reed out'].

===First or firstly?===
Should we say first, second, third...etc. when enumerating points in a thesis or should we say firstly, secondly, thirdly...etc?  There is a very long history of arguments about this for at least two centuries! So best to avoid this word war and keep the peace. Technically, both are ok.  However, more people these days prefer: first, second, third...etc. The fact is no one complains if you leave out the "ly", but some people complain if you put it in. Therefore, to maximize the chance of not upsetting your thesis examiner leave the "ly" out!

===Comprise or compose?===

Comprise is a verb meaning "to contain" and compose is a verb being "to combine."   So for example:

:The circuit comprises a resistor and capacitor (correct)
:A resistor and capacitor comprise the circuit (wrong)
:A resistor and capacitor compose the circuit (correct)
:The circuit composes a resistor and capacitor (wrong)

You can easily check the above makes sense by noting the the circuit is the whole thing, whereas the resistor and capacitor are the components.  The circuit is what contains the components and components are combined to make the circuit.

===Comprise or comprised of?===

The trick here is to substitute the "comprise" with "contain" and see which sounds better:

:The circuit comprises a resistor and capacitor     →    The circuit contains a resistor and capacitor... (sounds correct)
:The circuit is comprised of a resistor and capacitor  →    The circuit is contained of a resistor and capacitor... (sounds wrong)

Therefore always avoid "comprised of" as it is technically wrong. Language does evolve and many people do say "comprised of" and you can argue to for its use. However, if you use "comprises" no one will complain, but if you use "comprised of" some people will complain.   Thus, to minimise the chances of annoying a thesis examiner, it is better to avoid "comprised of."

===Cannot or can not?===
Strictly, both are equivalent.  However, "cannot" is far more commonly used.  So you use "cannot" to avoid annoying an examiner or reviewer. There is an exception: you split it into two words if the "not" is part of a different phrase such as "only".  Examples are:

:The circuit cannot turn on.   
:The circuit can not only provide high gain, but can also provide impedance matching.

===Various academic words===
There are a number of academic words that you need to be aware how to correctly use:

* '''Prove.'''   Avoid using the words "proof" and "prove" unless you are writing closed-form mathematics.  In the physical world you cannot ultimately prove anything; we only increase confidence in models for given circumstances. Models are always subject to revision, especially when new measuring instruments open up a greater range of new circumstances.  Therefore, for any physical discussion and experiments, always use "show" or "demonstrate" instead of "prove." On the other hand the mathematical world is not real, it is artificial. In maths you can make proofs as the mathematical space is well defined.  In the physical world we do not know the extent of physical parameter spaces, as our instruments are not omnipotent. So we can never make closed form proofs in the sense that we can with mathematics. The physical world is always open-ended in that sense.

* '''Law.'''  This is used in the sense of "Newton's Laws"  for example.  There actually is no such thing as a law in science. Use of this word is a mistake of tradition. All "laws" named by humans are subject to revision. Therefore avoid using this term where you can.  Only use it if it is already commonly used, such as in "Ohm's Law." In mathematics, however, there really are laws such as the "distributive law"  and "law of exponents."  Because mathematics is imaginary and not physical, we can have laws that are guaranteed to always hold.

* '''Ansatz.''' This is a mathematical or physical starting guess, that you later verify by your results.

* '''Paradox.''' This is something that is true but appears to contain a contradiction. Most paradoxes can be resolved and it can be shown that the contradiction was not real in the first place. However, there are a few paradoxes that seem to have no solution. If you are talking about a paradox that has been solved, then to make this clear it is better to call it an ''apparent paradox''. An exception is when referring to an apparent paradox by name; for example, "Simpson's paradox"  is the name of an apparent paradox.   It is just its name, and no one is suggesting that it is a real paradox. To say "Simpson's apparent paradox"  is too long, and so we shorten the name for brevity. Note that apparent paradoxes are sometimes called ''veridical'' paradoxes, and this was a term coined by Quine.

* '''Heuristic.''' This word has specific meaning in education and psychology.  But here we will only focus on what we mean in engineering and computer science. A heuristic is a search or optimization technique based on a set of strategies, rather than a brute force exhaustive algorithm, resulting in rough solutions that are good starting points. A metaheuristic is the same thing, but not tailored to a specific problem; a metaheuristic can be used more generally.