Why topological invariants instead of topological invariances?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mmssm
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Topological
AI Thread Summary
The term "invariant" functions as both an adjective and a noun, indicating something that possesses the property of being invariant. In contrast, "invariance" is solely a noun that describes the property itself rather than an object. The discussion highlights the nuanced differences in meaning and usage between these terms in English. The complexity of English language is acknowledged, emphasizing its unique characteristics. Understanding these distinctions is essential for clarity in discussions about topological concepts.
mmssm
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Isnt it invariant an adjective?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because that's the way English is.

"Invariant" is indeed an adjective, but it is also a noun referring to something that has the property of being invariant. In the (tautological) sentence "I know that this quantity is an invariant because it is invariant", the word "invariant" is used twice, once a noun and once as adjective.

And "invariance" is also noun, but it refers to the property that is described by the adjective, not to an object that has that property: "I know that this quantity is an invariant because is invariant, which is to say that it has the property of invariance".

English is weird. I love it for its quirkiness and expressive power, but it's still weird.
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks

Similar threads

Back
Top