From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264487AbTDXXR6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:17:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264488AbTDXXR6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:17:58 -0400 Received: from siaag2af.compuserve.com ([149.174.40.136]:48541 "EHLO siaag2af.compuserve.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264487AbTDXXR4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:17:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 19:25:37 -0400 From: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com> Subject: Re: How did the Spelling Police miss this one? To: "viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk" Cc: Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel , Johannes Ruscheinski , Steven Cole Message-ID: <200304241929_MC3-1-35E8-687A@compuserve.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Al Viro wrote: >> On the other hand, "canonicalize", while strange and new, unambiguously >> means (b). >> >> Is there an already-existing word which means (b)? > >% webster normalize There is a subtle difference between 'normal' and 'canonical', but I can't quite put my finger on it. In number theory there's a thorem that says: Any positive integer n > 1 can be written uniquely in a 'canonical form' n = p[1]**k[1] * p[2]**k[2] * ... * p[r]**k[r] where, for i = 1,2,...,r, each k[i] is a positive integer and each p[i] is a prime, with p[1] < p[2] < ... < p[r]. Note that it says 'a' canonical form, not 'the' canonical form. I would argue that what is used in the above is 'normal canonical form.' (And there is only one other canonical form possible.) ------ Chuck