Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: svolgimento dell'espressione

carrying out of the expression
performance of the expression
execution of the expression
evolution of the expression
progress of the expression
unrolling of the expression
unwinding of the expression
la forma più adatta?


It doesn't even make sense in Italian!
I'd say the "simplification of the expression".
Kiuhnm

 I'd say the "simplification of the expression".
That would be slightly different: deleting a term or a part of an 
equation, thus simplifying it. For example, passing from a*(3/3)=5 to 
a=5 is a simplification: it makes the expression look more *compact*.
By contrast, I think that alex wants to express a *logical* passage 
linking two mathematical expressions (which is not necessarily a 
simplification -- in fact, it can even lead to a more complicated 
equation). This is called
- expanding the expression (preferably) or
- developing the expression.
-- 
Tchau, -João do Sabão

 - developing the expression.
If you have to "svolgere l'espressione", you aren't asked to do a single 
passage. You're usually asked to simplify the expression.
Kiuhnm

 I would never use it.
Or, better, I would ask "In what sense?" or "What do you mean by that?"
Kiuhnm

Kiuhnm ha scritto:

allora guardate
2*3+4:(6-2*2)=
quello che ho appena scritto cos'è?
La traccia dell'espressione.
Chiaro (SI/NO)?
Dopo aver avuto la traccia, gli alunni (non vagabondi) devono procedere 
allo "svolgimento".
6+4:(6-4)=
6+4:2=
6+2=8
* * * svolgimento dell'espressione * * *
è difficile da tradurre?

 � difficile da tradurre?
Direi evaluate o calculate

On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:32:10 -0500, alex wrote
(in article 
<sggac.hf5609y.zl4zxf...@ka8eb.01o86t.yk3rsh.v1dx5.3lzs9f>):

I'm digging into my high-school brain for this, but it seems to me that "[to] 
factor the expression [or 'equation']" fills the bill.
-- 
Joe/Joey da New York

 factor the expression [or 'equation']" fills the bill.
I'd only use "factor" if you're converting e.g. x^2-y^2 into (x+y)(x-
y),
not much more general things.

):


Oh, yes; it all -- well, mostly -- comes back to me now.
I knew there was a reason for blocking it out. :-)


> Direi evaluate o calculate
evaluate

 wrote in message
news:49a40a0c$0$1112$4faf...@reader4.news.tin.it...

Sounds good to me.
http://www.teacherschoice.com.au/Maths_Library/Algebra/Alg_7.htm
Joe from Massachusetts

 
http://www.teacherschoice.com.au/Maths_Library/Algebra/Alg_7.htm
We need to know more about what the original poster wants.
e.g. if he wants you to turn (x+1)^3 into x^3+3x^2+3x+1 that's not
simplification.

 simplification.
solve = risolvi un'equazione x+2=10
simplify = semplifica un'espressione
evaluate = calcola il valore di un'espressione
Expand = sviluppa l'espressione (x+1)^3 = ...
Factor = fattorizza un'espressione

 simplification.
expand


Usually, you evaluate a function or an expression in one point.
4+5
9
is not an evaluation, but a simplification.
Kiuhnm

 is not an evaluation, but a simplification.
uhm...
Calculate 4+5
Calculate and simplify
(6+3*2+5)/(2*4+3-2)


I guess there are many ways of looking at it.
Kiuhnm

> I guess there are many ways of looking at it.
You can look into some math textbook or in software like mathematica or 
matlab.


I see you don't accept any compromise.
Well, 4+9 -> 13 is a simplification.
A simplification is a sequence of algebraic manipulations that 
transforms an expression into a simpler one.
It's obvious that 13 is simpler than 4+9 and the transformation is 
algebraic.
Kiuhnm

 algebraic.
I know what you're sayng but I have looked into dozen of original 
textbooks and I haven't found the term "simplify" for that example.
Instead will find "calculate" or "perform the indicated operations".

 wrote in message
news:49a70cc8$0$1123$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...

The transformation is arithmetic, not algebraic.
Any arithmetic expression can be reduced to a single real number. This is
not the case for algebraic expressions.
Joe from Massachusetts

 The transformation is arithmetic, not algebraic.
There isn't such a clear distinction.
Arithmetic is just an old-fashioned term.
Today we have the so-called (Abstract) Algebra which even define the 
value of 1+1 (see Peano). I'd say that "arithmetic" is just a 
"scholastic term".
Algebra is not something different, but a generalization.
Saying that 4+5 is not an algebraic expression because there are no 
variables is problematic. It would means that Algebra cannot deal with 
expressions when the variables vanish!
Kiuhnm


Infatti il dizionario traduce come "factor" come "scomposizione in fattori".

 wrote in message
news:49a86616$0$1121$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...

There are Peano Algebras developed by others which use Peano's ideas.
"Peano's Arithmetic" is often used to describe Peano's axioms, never
"Peano's Algebra", so I don't think Arithmetic is as outdated as you
suggest.
Joe from Massachusetts

 suggest.
So the atom is still believed to be indivisible?
Number Theory was called Higher Arithmetic and now is taught as part of 
Abstract Algebra.
And we started from 4+5 = 9.
Kiuhnm