Does the absence of the term "valley" make a difference?

[louislaolu]

TL;DR Summary: the peaks and valleys vs. the peaks

A. He felt this interminable wave was an abstract view of the universe: one end connected to the endless past, the other to the endless future, and in the middle only the ups and downs of random chance—without life, without pattern, the peaks and valleys at different heights like uneven grains of sand, the whole curve like a one-dimensional desert made of all the grains of sand lined up in a row: lonely, desolate, so long that it was intolerable.

B. He felt this interminable wave was an abstract view of the universe: one end connected to the endless past, the other to the endless future, and in the middle only the ups and downs of random chance—without life, without pattern, the peaks at different heights like uneven grains of sand, the whole curve like a one-dimensional desert made of all the grains of sand lined up in a row: lonely, desolate, so long that it was intolerable.

Which of the above two descriptions is more accurate? Does the absence of the term valleys make a difference?

 

[Hornbein]

I vote no.

 

[hutchphd]

What is the sound of one hand clapping? I like the valleys.

 

[jtbell]

this interminable wave

Of what?

 

[jedishrfu]

Logically one could think that the peaks change heights but the valleys don't so I think you need to be explicit there because the valleys could be at varying heights too.

Is this a Grammarly kind of question?

I’ve run into cases where it wants me to drop a word that I feel is essential so I decline the suggestion.

 

[Borek]

If ups and downs, why only peaks?

 

[gmax137]

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

 

[JT Smith]

It doesn't have any effect on the accuracy, whatever that even means. It's just not that well written. Based on that one paragraph I wouldn't want to read the book/story/article that contained it.

Was this generated with AI by any chance? Or is it part of one of those bad opening sentence competitions?

 

[DaveC426913]

A peaks-only description makes no sense.

A "peaks and valleys" description means the baseline is somewhere convenient. No matter how high the next peak, or deep the next valley, you can always measure it from the midline.

But: a "peaks-only" description means you don't k now where to set the baseline because you don't know how deep the deepest valley will be.

 

[russ_watters]

If ups and downs, why only peaks?

I agree. This isn't merely a logic question, it's about style and common turns of phrases. It may technically be redundant, but that's how it is generally said.

 

[JT Smith]

You can have peaks without valleys. Happens all the time.

And you can deviate from common turns of phrase if you choose. Sometimes that's a good thing, a new twist instead of the same tired old cliches.

There's no right or wrong. But there is good and not so good writing. Ideally one wants to write in such a way as to encourage the reader to continue.

 

[DaveC426913]

You can have peaks without valleys. Happens all the time.

Only if you can establish a baseline at or below the lowest conceivable point. And you'd have to know that in advance.

 

[JT Smith]

Only if you can establish a baseline at or below the lowest conceivable point. And you'd have to know that in advance.

Baseline? I look around and see peaks but no valleys. All day long I've been up and down peaks but not in a valley. Not once. Sure, there are valleys out there somewhere but not here.

 

[DaveC426913]

Baseline? I look around and see peaks but no valleys. All day long I've been up and down peaks but not in a valley. Not once. Sure, there are valleys out there somewhere but not here.

You never know when you're going to encounter a deeper valley than any before.

You say you "came down a peak" but for all you know you are not at the bottom.

 

[JT Smith]

You never know when you're going to encounter a deeper valley than any before.

You say you "came down a peak" but for all you know you are not at the bottom.

I don't think that's true. I have an accurate topographic map. I have a phone with GPS and mapping apps. It's very clear that the nearest valley is miles away.

I went up and down peaks but not into valleys. Why would you insist I include valleys in that sentence when no valleys were encountered? When you go to the grocery store do you include distant galaxies in the description of your trip?

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't think that's true. I have an accurate topographic map. I have a phone with GPS and mapping apps. It's very clear that the nearest valley is miles away.

I went up and down peaks but not into valleys. Why would you insist I include valleys in that sentence when no valleys were encountered?

In that case, your anecdote is specious and a flawed analogy to the OP's scenario.

When you go to the grocery store do you include distant galaxies in the description of your trip?

Yes, in a sense. We measure height here in Earth from sea level, which is arbitrary, not absolute. We don't have to know the deepest depth of the galaxy before establishing our reference mark. We have allowed for both positive readings and negative readings.

 

[JT Smith]

A peaks-only description makes no sense.

A "peaks and valleys" description means the baseline is somewhere convenient. No matter how high the next peak, or deep the next valley, you can always measure it from the midline.

But: a "peaks-only" description means you don't k now where to set the baseline because you don't know how deep the deepest valley will be.

View attachment 325022

This is what I responding to. The notion that peaks and valleys always go together. That's clearly untrue.

I wasn't making an analogy to the OP's scenario. It's creative writing. Who are we to assume what is in the author's mind?

 

[DaveC426913]

This is what I responding to. The notion that peaks and valleys always go together. That's clearly untrue.

I wasn't making an analogy to the OP's scenario. It's creative writing.

Nowhere in there did I say or imply "always". I let the OP set the context. "Always" was an overreach.

Who are we to assume what is in the author's mind?

We can assume what the OP wrote in the OP. Otherwise the world descends into chaos and heartbreak.

Note that you introduced the notion of a topo map, giving you knowledge aforehand of the lowest elevations. That's moving the goalposts from the OP.

 

[JT Smith]

Nowhere in there did I say or imply "always". I let the OP set the context. "Always" was an overreach.

You did imply it. You said that peaks without valleys makes no sense. Hence, peaks always come with valleys.

Note that you introduced the notion of a topo map, giving you knowledge aforehand of the lowest elevations. That's moving the goalposts from the OP.

I will repeat myself: I was not responding to the OP. I was responding to your insistance that a "peaks-only description makes no sense".

Your turn, the last word.

 

[DaveC426913]

You did imply it. You said that peaks without valleys makes no sense. Hence, peaks always come with valleys.

OP provided context.
It was you who added "always" (twice now), not me.

 

[berkeman]

The Central Valley in California is basically at sea level. Just sayin'...

https://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects/central-valley/about-central-valley.html

Generally, most of the valley lies close to sea level and the land surface has very low relief, but is higher along the valley margins.

 

[gmax137]

Death Valley's Badwater Basin is the point of lowest elevation in North America, at 282 feet (86 m) below sea level. It is 84.6 miles (136.2 km) east-southeast of Mount Whitney — the highest point in the contiguous United States, with an elevation of 14,505 feet (4,421 m).

So maybe we can say, "from peak to basin" ?

Anyone else think this is a weird thread?

 

[Astronuc]

Does the absence of the term valleys make a difference?

Yes. If one refers to peaks or valleys alone, one if emphasizing the high or low points. Peaks and valleys emphasizes both, as in 'hill and dale', although one could say 'over the hills and faraway', which would mean beyond the hills (or the boundary). It depends on the context.

In England, one will find reference to 'dale', as in Weardale, Teesdale, Tynedale, Airedale; these are reference to river valleys for the Wear, Tees, Tyne and Aire rivers, which flow from hills to the sea via routes through alluvial plains.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weardale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airedale
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_(landform)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alluvial_plain

Anyone else think this is a weird thread?

Perhaps an AI learning exercise.

 

[DaveC426913]

Which of the above two descriptions is more accurate?

It's an unusual question. The term 'accuracy' requires fidelity to some specification.

We can't answer the OP's question without first-hand observation of the target for assessment of accuracy.

So we don't know if the OP really means to ask about accuracy - or more likely - about style.

 

[russ_watters]

You can have peaks without valleys. Happens all the time.

Not in literature. In literature you have peaks and valleys, not peaks and baselines.

And you can deviate from common turns of phrase if you choose. Sometimes that's a good thing, a new twist instead of the same tired old cliches.

Sure. But in order for it to become cliché it has to be used a lot. And if it isn't used a lot it will have to make sense or be aesthetically pleasing to be accepted. "Peaks and baselines" just doesn't have a good ring to it.

...this is setting aside the fact, as others have pointed out, that data doesn't usually work that way. usually it really is peaks and valleys, not peaks and baselines. The surface of the Earth is a notable exception to that. But it isn't because the valleys don't exist, it's because they've been clipped.

 

[gmax137]

I know it is not entirely correct, but when I hear "valley" I expect to find a river or stream at the bottom. In my mind, there is a difference between "valley" and "low spot."

 

[DaveC426913]

I know it is not entirely correct, but when I hear "valley" I expect to find a river or stream at the bottom. In my mind, there is a difference between "valley" and "low spot."

Sure. If this were natural mountain peaks and valleys, but in the OP's passage it's a metaphor for ups and downs in some other surface.

And the metaphor is, conventionally, "peaks and valleys". Because it's a known cliché, the reader gets the picture with minimum effort and break in reading.

 

[louislaolu]

Thank you all for the discussion!
The previous sentence is " What the listener of Post disliked the most was seeing the waves that slowly crawled across the display, a visual record of the meaningless noise the listening post picked up from space."
Maybe this co-text helps to understand the sentence.
I think wave here means transverse wave.

 

[DrGreg]

Thank you all for the discussion!
The previous sentence is " What the listener of Post disliked the most was seeing the waves that slowly crawled across the display, a visual record of the meaningless noise the listening post picked up from space."
Maybe this co-text helps to understand the sentence.
I think wave here means transverse wave.

If the analogy is with waves rather than hills, the phrase "peaks and troughs" would work a little better than "peaks and valleys".

 

[DaveC426913]

If the analogy is with waves rather than hills, the phrase "peaks and troughs" would work a little better than "peaks and valleys".

Even better: crests and troughs.