Generate the answer for a given question. The question requires common knowledge of English. Make sure that the answer is in detail, long, consistent with the context, and requires general knowledge of English. To be less repetitive, please vary your language for each question. Give a proper explanation to answer, and if necessary, provide the definition of various terms. And conclude your answer if it's long. If you have used other resources (e.g., Merriam Webster's.) to answer the question, include citations in your answer. You don't need to paraphrase the context of your resources, but make sure that your answer is consistent and complete.
--------
Question: The phrase to boil down to something can be found in most dictionaries. However, to me, it sounds colloquial to write Finding an exact solution to Eq. 1 boils down to ... A real-life example can be found here, and many more here. Interestingly, many of the examples are by non-native speakers. Is it good style to use this phrase in formal writing? (I am prepared to hear that if people use it, then it is OK.).

Answer: As has been suggested in other answers, it is not very suitable in formal writing. Here are some alternatives you might consider: amount to be reduced to be a matter of be in essence


Question: If a proper noun includes the word 'the' and we want to refer to it using the definite article, should 'the' appear twice in succession? For example: 'Can you pass me The Who CD?' vs. 'can you pass me the The Who CD?' 'The US Government passed The Hague Act' vs. 'The US Government passed the The Hague Act?'. (this example inspired by a comment to this answer). To me the first versions seem incorrect, but the second versions sound very awkward.

Answer: I provided a long answer to the question 'Capitalisation in texts where the title is also a concept that is referred to within the text?' a while ago. Part of my answer to that question is directly relevant to this one. In the following quotation, The Boss is a nickname commonly used for the singer Bruce Springsteen. Sometimes what sounds natural can supersede what is technically correct from a syntactical point of view. For example: ✔ Those are the Gucci shoes I was talking about. Here, we have a proper noun acting to modify a common noun. But while the next sentence follows the same syntactical rule, it doesn't look right: ? That is the The Boss ticket I was talking about. Even though the second article is not actually an article per se (it's part of a name), it's not possible to look at the duplication and think it's appropriate. If something is technically correct, but is still incredibly awkward, it's better to rephrase it. In this case, we could omit one or the other word (knowing the meaning would be understood anyway) or we could actually restructure the sentence so it's not awkward to start with: ✔ That is the ticket to The Boss I was talking about. ✔ That is the The Boss ticket I was talking about. ✔ That is the The Boss ticket I was talking about. In the last two sentences, we know perfectly well which words should be capitalizedit's just that we're choosing to omit one or the other for the sake of comprehension. (And which we omit would be a matter of style or personal choice.)


Question: There is a question titled 'Does calling a road 'wavy' convey its shape clearly?' which looks like this is a duplicate, but in fact, it's not. In that question, there's talk of a road that slightly bends right and left, not up and down. So how do you describe a road that is up down and road? I am confused which word to use. There is one word to describe it. Can I say it is a zig-zag road?.

Answer:
'Undulate' is often used for roads that go up and down, while 'zig-zag' is used for roads that repeatedly bend to the left and right. The road undulates for three miles before descending into a valley. I enjoy an undulating road while driving, but not while cycling.