Glossary entry (derived from question below)
German term or phrase:
Links-Multiplikation
English translation:
left multiplication, pre-multiplication
German term
United States
Was nicht ist, kann noch werden.
Native in: English (Variant: US) 
Works in: German to English
Links-Multiplikation
I am at the limit of my math understanding and need some help with this term. Here is the usage:
Y = XG + N . (13.1)
Links-Multiplikation dieser Gleichung mit dem komplex konjugierten Eingangsspektrum X liefert
XY = XXG + XN . (13.2)
(In the second equation, the first X in each term has a bar over it as does the X following 'Eingangsspektrum.')
Now, I see what they are doing. As matrix multiplication is not commutative, it seems they are telling me to put the X-bar on the LEFT side of each term. OK, but WHAT do we call that in English? I am tempted to use:
Multiplying this equation by the complex conjugate input spectrum X yields ...
and just finesse the whole problem.
The client suggested 'outer product' but that is a bit beyond my math knowledge so I really cannot assess its validity.
Are there any math wizards out there who can help me with references or who have a translation for this?
Thanks.
| 4 +4 | left multiplication, pre-multiplication |
Erik Freitag
|
| reference |
Mair A-W (PhD)
|
Non-PRO (1): philgoddard
When entering new questions, KudoZ askers are given an opportunity* to classify the difficulty of their questions as 'easy' or 'pro'. If you feel a question marked 'easy' should actually be marked 'pro', and if you have earned more than 20 KudoZ points, you can click the "Vote PRO" button to recommend that change.
How to tell the difference between "easy" and "pro" questions:
An easy question is one that any bilingual person would be able to answer correctly. (Or in the case of monolingual questions, an easy question is one that any native speaker of the language would be able to answer correctly.)
A pro question is anything else... in other words, any question that requires knowledge or skills that are specialized (even slightly).
Another way to think of the difficulty levels is this: an easy question is one that deals with everyday conversation. A pro question is anything else.
When deciding between easy and pro, err on the side of pro. Most questions will be pro.
* Note: non-member askers are not given the option of entering 'pro' questions; the only way for their questions to be classified as 'pro' is for a ProZ.com member or members to re-classify it.
Proposed translations
Germany
Experienced, strong technical background
Native in: German
Works in: Dutch to German, English to German, Flemish to German
left multiplication, pre-multiplication
| agree |
philgoddard
: Though I think you need a reference.//Yes, it is, because it makes your answer more authoritative, rather than saying "trust me, I know." And I think it's non pro because it's easy to guess even if you don't know it.
10 mins
|
|
Thanks! I don't think looking for references is my job (unless my answer is obscure or being challenged). BTW: I really don't think this is a non-pro question.
|
|
| agree |
Mair A-W (PhD)
11 mins
|
|
Thanks!
|
|
| agree |
Sabine Akabayov, PhD
4 hrs
|
| agree |
Björn Vrooman
: Maybe that helps: https://math.nyu.edu/~neylon/linalgfall04/project1/dj/propof... Don't ask me, but I get better results looking for the verb "left mutiply" + matrix than for the noun. Google is a mysterious creature.
5 hrs
|
Reference comments
Germany
above and beyond
Native in: English (Variant: British)
Works in: German to English, Dutch to English
Discussion
I know because I'm the one who sometimes had to go in and correct some of the stuff, which is fine because that's my job. But it doesn't help that links to these collections of terms (they aren't dictionaries; you won't catch me calling them that) are being posted as part of some answers. In that sense, it may be better not to put something there at all.
I also agree that it is contradictory to post it non-Pro, but ask for an explanation. On the other hand, I do think Phil's right that some kind of reference would help. And I'm surprised that Steffen agrees, who almost always posts some kind of explanation or links :) I'm not telling anyone or asking anyone to take half an hour out of their busy schedule to answer a question, although I still don't understand KudoZ' bias toward agreements.
All in all, I won't vote it non-Pro--this time.
Best wishes
I haven't given an explanation because Jccantrell already gave one in the question. It's quite clear that he has no problems understanding the concept, he was just unsure how to put it in his target language.
I'm not sure that your assessment regarding the randomly selected bilingual layman is true. Mind that they wouldn't be told to simply translate the term in question literally. They'd be asked what the correct translation is. I guess that the majority would answer the question with "I have no idea" (might be worth an experiment), while a few might indeed get the translation right. The difference is that they would be right by chance, and with a very low level of certainty. Compare this with the examples given in the FAQ you quote ("I love you", "Welcome to Panama", "Mmm, yummy"), where literally every single bilingual person would be able to give a correct answer without hesitating, and with a level of certainty of as near to 100% as it gets. So I stand by my point, this is a pro question.
1) Some people flaunt their supposed knowledge of a field when they have none. I can see your credentials, so this isn't so much of an issue; with many others, I can't (including me, BTW).
2) Some people let the commenters do the work for them. Jccantrell and Phil will know what I'm talking about when I say Johanna had to provide a reference explaining what the answerer clearly didn't explain and Phil provided another piece of the puzzle--this time, the question wasn't just about how to translate it, but why this term was there in German at all. I don't think that's OK.
In any case, enjoy your weekend
Unfortunately, KudoZ isn't all that clear about it. Straight from the rulebook:
"When applying the above definitions, detach yourself from your own background/specialisation and think of a - hypothetical - randomly selected bilingual person. Is it likely that this person would be able to produce a good translation of the term or phrase in question (and in the particular context shown) from the top of his/her head?"
https://www.proz.com/translation-articles/articles/95/1/Kudo...
Someone should rephrase this. As it stands, the answer in this context would be Yes, since it's a one-for-one translation. What else would a "random person" say?
I'm not trying to be demeaning. I am a bit surprised about your lack of an explanation, though, since I have seen answers/d-box posts of yours and I'd have expected something. I also think he should use the verb here, which he can ("left multiply"; no hyphen).
Best wishes
Regarding Google, the question is: Will an asker with average Google skills be able to check the validity of a proposed answer? I think this is basically independent from the fact that everyone doesn't always get the same search results.
2
Now, this one does require special knowledge and I understand jccantrell's problem of not seeing the forest for the trees, but what I don't see is an explanation anywhere. How does this help? And I know from experience that if you know your stuff, it'll take you a minute or two to find a reference:
https://mafiadoc.com/chapter-2-linear-transformations-and-ma...
And, Erik, Google personalizes your search (something I should take into consideration more often, too):
http://www.webpresencesolutions.net/7-reasons-google-search-...
https://www.awsp.com/google-search-results-different/
You cannot expect someone to find the same things you did.
I'll be happy to provide references if these can't be found with a very simple Google search (so not in this case) or if my answer is seriously challenged by a colleague (dito, so far).
Funnily enough, the next question in my language pairs is this one
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/french_to_english/medical_general/...
where the asker was very honest in saying that he forgot to try the most obvious solution.
It may be a technical subject, but the answer is easy to guess.