This question was closed without grading. Reason: Errant question
Nov 24, 2007 00:58
16 yrs ago
English term
Responsible, trustworthy and accurate
Native in: Portuguese (Variant: European/Portugal) 
, Spanish (Variant: Standard-Spain)
Works in: English to Portuguese, Spanish to Portuguese, Portuguese to Spanish, and 6 more.
m and M.
English to Portuguese
Other
Fisheries
• acceptable, if a maximum of c/n values are between m and M, and the rest of the values observed are < m,
• unsatisfactory, if one or more of the values observed are >M or more than c/n values are between m and M.
• unsatisfactory, if one or more of the values observed are >M or more than c/n values are between m and M.
Proposed translations
(Portuguese)
| 2 +2 | mínimo e máximo |
rhandler
|
| 4 | m and M |
isarcat
|
Proposed translations
+2
30 mins
mínimo e máximo
From the context, this is what I guess.
2 hrs
m and M
Without the context obviously I can't be sure, but n and m are commonly used letters to designate variables. They're a bit like x and y. They can also be indices and stand for 1, 2, 3.... up to some number m. Basically leave them as they are.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2007-11-24 04:02:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
It could also be that they indeed stand for some kind of boundary, a kind of "minimum" and "maximum" like rhandler guessed, but this would be pure guess. Again, I would not change them, in either case.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 hrs (2007-11-24 15:41:56 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, I should explain that my confidence level (4) reflects my conviction that these terms (m and M) should not be changed. It does not mean to convey my actual knowledge of what m and M stand for. That would be a guess, given we know very little about the text. It is true that we're trying to help the asker and she may get ideas from our discussion... :)
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 3 hrs (2007-11-24 04:02:06 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
It could also be that they indeed stand for some kind of boundary, a kind of "minimum" and "maximum" like rhandler guessed, but this would be pure guess. Again, I would not change them, in either case.
--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 14 hrs (2007-11-24 15:41:56 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------
Yes, I should explain that my confidence level (4) reflects my conviction that these terms (m and M) should not be changed. It does not mean to convey my actual knowledge of what m and M stand for. That would be a guess, given we know very little about the text. It is true that we're trying to help the asker and she may get ideas from our discussion... :)
Peer comment(s):
| neutral |
rhandler
: You should call mine an "educated guess", not just "pure", in view of my engineering background. By the way, weren't you supposed to offer a translation? // You didn't offer a translation, just repeated the expression.
9 hrs
|
|
I did, m and M! I have an extensive backgrd. in biophysics & informatics--countless yrs doing Math, & I still think this is an overly dangerous leap. They may be a kind of max and min OR not. Then u wud have a major error in a tech text.
|
Something went wrong...