[Bored chemist (OP)]

But surely the principle of doing experimentation is not well understood by anyone.

You seem to think that nobody understands how to do experiments.
That's plainly wrong.

You can not demonstrate reliably any further phenomenon behaviour if your experimental devices itself use the phenomenon you want to study.

OK, say you want to do an experiment to find out about tigers.
According to you, you can't include a tiger in my experiment because that would be "the phenomenon you want to study."

[Deecart]

OK, say you want to do an experiment to find out about tigers.
According to you, you can't include a tiger in my experiment because that would be "the phenomenon you want to study."

There is no sense to include a tiger in your experimentation if you already know what a tiger is...

But you can understand the thing better with an other example :
You can not test if someone is stupid if you give him the right answer to the question used to verify if he is stupid.
Is it clearer for you ?

[Deecart]

You seem to think that nobody understands how to do experiments.
That's plainly wrong.

No, you have to go back studying logic.
I say that it is not well understood "by anyone".
This mean that not anyone well understand... not that everyone not understand.
This mean that there are some people not able to understand how science experience work (we cant know how much and we are not giving this information).
Do you understand clearly now ?

[Bored chemist (OP)]

The problem here is your  understanding of English.

I say that it is not well understood "by anyone".
This mean that not anyone well understand... not that everyone not understand.

is just plain wrong.
Something that is not well understood by anyone means that nobody understands it well.

What you should have said (if that was what you meant) was "But surely the principle of doing experimentation is not well understood by everyone."

Learn English, lose the attitude, then come back and apologise, then we can look at what you meant to say, rather than what you did say.

[Deecart]

Something that is not well understood by anyone means that nobody understands it well.

You are wrong.
There are two possibilities to understand it (english langage is not well suited for science... but i known it already)
1. It is not well understand by everyone.
2. Nobody understand it well.

Thats why you do the confusion.
I am not doing the confusion (i am aware of the subtility).
It is you, because you use english language, who are confused (probably because you dont master the ambiguity of your own language or because you fooled yourself because you want to be right) who think there is only one way to understand some words.
Pretty amusing.

Now you know at least why french language has been choosed for diplomatic actvities, and not the english language.

[Bored chemist (OP)]

You are wrong.

Then you will have no difficulty getting someone to agree with you.

In the mean time

There are two possibilities to understand it

No, there are not.

english langage is not well suited for science.

Lots of people use it.
In particular it is the commonest language for international scientific conferences.

english langage is not well suited for science... but i known it already

Did you mean "The eEnglish language is not well suited for science... but iI known it already"?
In saying

Thats why you do the confusion.
I am not doing the confusion

you use the wrong auxilliary verb.
In English (note the capital letter, by the way) you should say that you are confused.
And there's an apostrophe in "that's".

(i am aware of the subtility).

Not good  with capital letters like "I", are you?
And a spell checker would have sorted out the subtlety for you.

The fact is that you get the English wrong a lot.
Maybe the French equivalent is ambiguous but the English isn't.
And that could be why it was chosen (not "choosed")  for diplomacy.
In diplomacy, it's very helpful to say 1 thing, but mean 2.
It's not so good in science.

OK this is science, so let's look at the evidence- your actual words.
What you said was

But surely the principle of doing experimentation is not well understood by anyone.

If you say something is "not well understood by anyone.", you mean that there is not any one person who understands it well.
That's what the words mean.

[Deecart]

DeepL translator (surely a better english translator than some Bored Chimist) :

"But surely the principle of doing experimentation is not well understood by anyone."

Is translated to :

"Mais le principe de l'expérimentation n'est sûrement pas bien compris par tout le monde."

And doing the translation again to english (yes with e because i like it so, and same with the i, as if you were teaching me something about that...) :

"But the principle of experimentation is surely not well understood by everyone."

So what ?
Anyone has changed to everyone.
I suppose everyone can now see that there is 2 possibilities to understand the first sentence.
But you surely are not part of everyone.

In diplomacy, it's very helpful to say 1 thing, but mean 2.

No it is very awfull.
You probably do the confusion between diplomacy and trade.
Diplomacy and trade are 2 separate words (just to say...).




 

[Bored chemist (OP)]

DeepL translator (surely a better english translator than some Bored Chimist) :

It's absurd to think that a machine translator is is better at English (with an "E" because I don't deliberately get things wrong) than a native speaker of the language.
But you don't have to take my word for it. Your examples prove it.
When you translate it from English, to French and then back, you change the meaning.
Anyone is not the same as everyone.
They have different meanings.
I already pointed that out.

What you should have said (if that was what you meant) was "But surely the principle of doing experimentation is not well understood by everyone."

Assuming Google translate is correct, it's the difference between "quelqu'un" and "tout le monde"

No it is very awfull.
You probably do the confusion between diplomacy and trade.
Diplomacy and trade are 2 separate words (just to say...).

I know what diplomacy is:
https://www.quotery.com/quotes/ambassador-honest-man-sent-lie

(and you still need to learn about "confusion".)

[Colin2B]

DeepL translator (surely a better english translator than some Bored Chimist) :

Apparently not

So what ?
Anyone has changed to everyone.
I suppose everyone can now see that there is 2 possibilities to understand the first sentence.
But you surely are not part of everyone.

Now I can see why you are having problems with some of the topics here:
No, there are not 2 possibilities to understand the first sentence. I will explain.

“But you surely are not part of everyone.” - yes he is, because everyone is the set of all people. This phrase “not well understood by everyone” means that not all people understand it well, but some do.
Whereas: “not well understood by anyone” means no-one understands it well.

Online translators rarely pick up these difference in meaning.

Whoops, sorry BC, overlap while posting

[Deecart]

    Diplomacy and trade are 2 separate words (just to say...).

I know what diplomacy is:
https://www.quotery.com/quotes/ambassador-honest-man-sent-lie

No you dont.
Here again you are doing wrong use of simple concepts and this lead to wrong comprehension of obvious things :
A lie is not an ambiguity.

Online translators rarely pick up these difference in meaning.

Actual Online translators are so bad you know... Faulle Ausrede ya ! Lame excuse !
No, you just are not able to have the right understanding of your own language.
What a pitty...

When you translate it from English, to French and then back, you change the meaning.

Thats because there is some ambiguity in english you dont even know... but i already explained it to you.

But enough of that, i am not here to entertain some bored guy.

[Bored chemist (OP)]

Thats because there is some ambiguity in english you dont even know

It's not that I don't know.
It's that it doesn't exist.

You are now trying to argue that you speak better English than two native English speakers- even though your writing is riddled with errors- because an electronic translator agrees with you- even though it disagrees with itself.

That takes a special kind of stupid.

but i already explained it to you.

You didn't "explain" anything.
You just repeated your mistake.

[Deecart]

You are now trying to argue that you speak better English than two native English speakers- even though your writing is riddled with errors- because an electronic translator agrees with you- even though it disagrees with itself.

DeepL Translator is an IA using deep learning technology.
If you think it is defect, feel free to send the conceptor a mail to explain them that "you" the great bored chemist, have found some problem they have never seen before.
You would be very kind of course to inform us how loud they have laught when you have announced them your expertise.

How does DeepL work?
November 1, 2021

We are frequently asked how it is that DeepL Translator often works better than competing systems from major tech companies. There are several reasons for this. Like most translation systems, DeepL Translator translates texts using artificial neural networks. These networks are trained on many millions of translated texts. However, our researchers have been able to make many improvements to the overall neural network methodology, mainly in four areas.

Network architecture
It is well known that most publicly available translation systems are direct modifications of the Transformer architecture. Of course, the neural networks of DeepL also contain parts of this architecture, such as attention mechanisms. However, there are also significant differences in the topology of the networks that lead to an overall significant improvement in translation quality over the public research state of the art. We see these differences in network architecture quality clearly when we internally train and compare our architectures and the best known Transformer architectures on the same data.
Training data

Most of our direct competitors are major tech companies, which have a history of many years developing web crawlers. They therefore have a distinct advantage in the amount of training data available. We, on the other hand, place great emphasis on the targeted acquisition of special training data that helps our network to achieve higher translation quality. For this purpose, we have developed, among other things, special crawlers that automatically find translations on the internet and assess their quality.

Training methodology
In public research, training networks are usually trained using the “supervised learning” method. The network is shown different examples over and over again. The network repeatedly compares its own translations with the translations from the training data. If there are discrepancies, the weights of the network are adjusted accordingly. We also use other techniques from other areas of machine learning when training the neural networks. This also allows us to achieve significant improvements.

Network size
Meanwhile, we (like our largest competitors) train translation networks with many billions of parameters. These networks are so large that they can only be trained in a distributed fashion on very large dedicated compute clusters. However, in our research we attach great importance to the fact that the parameters of the network are used very efficiently. This is how we have managed to achieve a similar translation quality even with our smaller and faster networks. We can therefore also offer very high translation quality to users of our free service.

Of course, we are always on the lookout for very good mathematicians and computer scientists who would like to help drive development, further improve DeepL Translator, and break down language barriers around the world. If you also have experience with mathematics and neural network training, and if it fulfills you to work on a product that is used worldwide for free, then please apply to DeepL!

https://www.deepl.com/en/blog/how-does-deepl-work

[Bored chemist (OP)]

If you think it is defect, feel free to send the conceptor a mail to explain them that "you" the great bored chemist, have found some problem they have never seen before.

I wouldn't like to take credit for a discovery that I didn't make.
It was you who discovered the error.
You noticed that translating something from English, to French and back again didn't give you the same thing as you started with. That's clearly an error.

Unfortunately, you are not bright enough to recognise that "someone" is not the same as "everyone" (nor that "quelqu'un" and "tout le monde" are different).

You would be very kind of course to inform us how loud they have laught when you have announced them your expertise.

Probably not  as loudly as people are laughing at you.

[Deecart]

Unfortunately, you are not bright enough to recognise that "someone" is not the same as "everyone" (nor that "quelqu'un" and "tout le monde" are different).

Try to get focused;
Nobody talk about "someone" and "everyone", here the polemic involve "anyone" and "everyone".
translated :
Personne ne parle de "quelqu'un" et de "tout le monde", ici la polémique implique "tout le monde" et "tout le monde".
Retranslated :
Nobody talks about "somebody" and "everybody", here the polemic involves "everybody" and "everybody".

Change "body" by "one" if your intellect dont permit you to understand the translation.

[Colin2B]

Change "body" by "one" if your intellect dont permit you to understand the translation.

This discussion is distracting from the topic of this thread and will stop immediately or you will find your posting rights removed.
The rules of this forum require you to “keep it friendly”. Your poor understanding of the English language and over reliance on flawed online translators means that many of your posts are misleading, misunderstood or incorrect. For that reason you are limited to posting only in the New Theories section until further notice, if you post outside that section you will have your posting rights removed. Depending on the quality of your replies in that section, this restriction will be reviewed after 10 days and you will be informed if you are allowed to resume unrestricted posting.

[Bored chemist (OP)]

Nobody talk about "someone" and "everyone", here the polemic involve "anyone" and "everyone".
translated :
Personne ne parle de "quelqu'un" et de "tout le monde", ici la polémique implique "tout le monde" et "tout le monde".
Retranslated :

Oops, I apologise for the slip.
You are right.
The problem here is that you don't want to see that "anyone" and "everyone" are different (rather than  "someone" and "everyone").
You are still wrong and I think that it would be kind to the OP if a passing mod could  split my forlorn attempts to educate you into a separate thread.
But that doesn't

[alancalverd]

https://www.deepl.com/en/blog/how-does-deepl-work

If that is an example of its output, it has a long way to go before it can produce acceptable English. I wonder what its input language was? And who taught it English?

I spent some time with an excellent editor whose task was to polish (not Polish) PhD theses for Swedish students. Scientific theses had to be written in English. My editor friend is a native Brit with a degree in English, several years' residence in Sweden and the USA, and a scientist husband, but every so often she sent me a passage of "Swinglish" that was clearly composed of English words in the right order, and entirely understandable science, but just wasn't "right". It was very difficult to point out what was wrong without rewriting it in British or American and saying "it's just different".     

The Boss and our temporary residents are currently using Google to translate between American, Russian, Georgian and Ukrainian, with gales of laughter coming from the kitchen at frequent intervals. We eat well, but I thank the Powers that Be for deciding that all aviators and controllers shall have a command of "Aviation English". The power of training and discipline is such that, regardless of the pilots' native language, the last words on any cockpit voice recorder are nearly always "oh sh1t", even though that phrase is not in the mandatory vocabulary.

[evan_au]

translating something from English, to French and back again

There was a story about the early days of machine translation from English to Russian and back again.
- Input: "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."
- Returned: "The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten."

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literal_translation#Translator's_humor

PS: I have the greatest respect for anyone who can be understood in more than one language!
- On a daily basis I work with people who achieve this feat; my feeble attempts have been very confusing to all concerned...
- Modern machine translation is far better than I can achieve, even if it is still sometimes confusing.