22

In a paper I'm working on, I'm tempted to write something like:

Note that the argument above also proves the following result:

Scholium. bla bla

Is this ok? Is it correct to say that a "scholium" is a "corollary of a proof"?

Jairo Bochi
  • 2,411
  • 4
    Isn't "porism" better? – Bruno Stonek Jan 31 '17 at 21:00
  • It is an explanatory result which helps to clarify the nature of the subject at hand, but does not have any subsequent consequences. – Ben McKay Jan 31 '17 at 21:06
  • 2
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholia#Other_uses – Christian Remling Jan 31 '17 at 21:10
  • @BrunoStonek True! But both words seem archaic. Maybe it's better to write "Corollary"? – Jairo Bochi Jan 31 '17 at 21:16
  • @JairoBochi I think I learned the word "porism" by reading Weibel's Introduction to Homological Algebra, so there's at least one modern source where it's used. It would sound fancy IMHO, but it seems perfectly correct. You will have to think what you prefer, to be very precise about your choice of words or to possibly save your reader a little visit to a dictionary :) – Bruno Stonek Jan 31 '17 at 21:19
  • 8
    I guess the issue is whether you want to impress your high-brow readers whilst confusing (or possibly attempting to educate) your low-brow ones, or whether you would rather use something slightly less precise which everyone will understand. There are arguments both ways. I would be keener to communicate effectively to more people; on the other hand if it hadn't been for Cassels I probably still wouldn't know what prolegomena were. – Kevin Buzzard Jan 31 '17 at 21:21
  • 3
    "Porism" is better IMO. (And it's okay if this sends some readers to the dictionary -- as long as the usage is accurate!) – Todd Trimble Jan 31 '17 at 21:27
  • 21
    Use plain English! Many readers of scientific papers are not native English speakers, and they do us a favor by writing and reading in English. Why not go easy on them? Theorem, Lemma, Proposition, Corollary are enough! – Lucia Jan 31 '17 at 21:32
  • 4
    Doesn't scholium mean "commentary"? – Denis Nardin Jan 31 '17 at 22:21
  • @Lucia Actually I'm not a native English speaker. I was probably influenced by Elon Lages Lima, who sometimes uses the word "Escólio" in his books (which are very popular among Brazilian students). Anyway, I'll stick by your advice. – Jairo Bochi Jan 31 '17 at 23:45
  • @JairoBochi: Yes, I guessed that looking at your profile after posting my comment. That's interesting about where you came by the word. I guess that Scholium and Escólio both have the sense of being clear even to schoolboys/girls? (Upon googling, I see it only means "Commentary". So I stand my suggestion to use plain English!) – Lucia Jan 31 '17 at 23:48
  • Instead of censoring yourself, why don't you use whatever word you want, and add a footnote explaining your intended meaning? – Flounderer Feb 01 '17 at 00:04
  • 2
    @Lucia Most Brazilian schoolboys/girls would feel ok with the word Escólio, provided they know what a fundamental group is. :D – Jairo Bochi Feb 01 '17 at 00:16
  • 3
    The only place I have seen the term scholium used is in Newton's Principia, where it eventually became clear to me from the usage that it meant "commentary" or "discussion". It would look archaic to use it today, and should not be used to mean something other than what its usual sense is (e.g., don't use it to mean a corollary of a proof). – KConrad Feb 01 '17 at 03:29
  • 2
    The meaning indeed seems to be 'comment', i.e. the sort of comment a medieval scholiast might insert into his copy of some ancient manuscript. However, I've seen Deligne using the term 'scholie' (in his 1972 paper, in French, on the Weil conjecture for K3 surfaces) where it carried the meaning 'a fact so well-known that I shouldn't feel obliged to give a proof, or reference' (which he didn't). I guess the added advantage is that if you call your well-known fact a 'fact', readers might protest, but if you call it a 'scholie', readers are way too impressed to bother asking for a proof. – R.P. Feb 01 '17 at 04:47
  • 2
    @René [Edited] Thanks for mentioning that 'scholia' means "scholastic marginalia". (And thanks to Denis below for the OED reference.) I would point readers also to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginalia, where the most famous instance in mathematics (referred to there as a scholium) is Fermat's Last Theorem as given in his famous marginal note. Despite the answer given by Konstantinos, I would caution against using 'scholium' in the sense described by the OP, since the more common understanding, as evidenced by comments here, is more along the lines of a gloss or marginal annotation. – Todd Trimble Feb 01 '17 at 05:58
  • 4
    Oxford English Dictionary: scholium, n., 1b: In certain mathematical works (e.g. Newton's Principia): A note added by the author illustrating or further developing some point treated in the text. (...) 1829 P. Barlow in Encycl. Metrop. I. 314/2 A scholium is a remark applied to some preceding propositions, in order to point out their relative connection, or general utility and application. – Denis Chaperon de Lauzières Feb 01 '17 at 07:36
  • 1
    The classic Greek word σχόλιον (a diminutive form, with the same etymology of school) denotes a "short explicatory comment", often inserted by successive, even anonymous copyists as marginal note to ancient texts; of course, scholia are of enormous importance in philology, in some cases more than the text itself. The word was then imported in Latin by Cicero, as many other terms from philosophy, science, literature, philology, that did not exist in Latin (Cicero however used scholium in the meaning of "short treatise"). – Pietro Majer Feb 02 '17 at 00:28
  • So, IMO using it in a mathematical article without a good reason sounds a bit unnatural, and even risks to appear frivolous (the same risk with the plural forms "theoremata" and "lemmata", and so on) – Pietro Majer Feb 02 '17 at 00:39
  • "Isn't "porism" better?" I thought a porism implied some kind of "rigidity", in that it is a type of result of the form "if such and such is true for certain cases then it is true more generally (within the context of the result)".

    – John R Ramsden Feb 02 '17 at 14:13
  • 1
    @Lucia So QED should be avoided altogether? –  Mar 24 '17 at 09:50

2 Answers2

27

I am not a specialist in either etymology nor the english language (I am not a native speaker of english as well) but since the words scholium and porism have both greek origins, I thought it might be of some interest to add some info on how these words have been used in both ancient and modern greek:
The word "porism" comes from the greek word "Πόρισμα" and it indicates something which is a direct implication of the preceding statement. I think the closest in english is corollary. (In non-mathematical contexts, the word πόρισμα also means the conclusion of some work).
The word "Scholium" comes from the greek word "Σχόλιο" and it it indicates something which although may be very closely connected to the preceding statement, it does not necessarily stem directly from it (neither logically nor conceptually). In this sense, a scholium may indicate some resemblance with another notion or method from some other field or some distant application, even some piece of info on the origins of the preceding result or its importance from a more conceptual viewpoint. In mathematical texts (in greek) the word "σχόλιο" is often used to discuss something related to relaxing the assumptions of the previous statement or indicating its limitations, under the stated assumptions. (A working translation might be "comment", but i think that in greek it is commonly used to indicate something more important than simply a comment -however I am not a philologist to tell for sure).

So, in my opinion, if you want to discuss something which is not a direct implication of your statement but it is proved using methods similar to the argument(s) provided to prove your statement or if you want to provide additional insight then the word "scholium" might be appropriate. If however, you wish to simply present some consequence of a line of argument you have already used, "porism" or "corollary" seem more appropriate -as other users have already indicated in their comments. In case you decide to use it, it would be better to avoid bold letters.

Edit: Since the OP's original question is how (and if) the word "Scholium" should be used in a mathematical paper, I feel that the question is of interest to the community of professional mathematics researchers. After all, the question has to do with the way a mathematical research paper is written and structured. However, the community will finally respond, one way or another. Maybe, it would also be instructive (with regard to the OP's original question) to have a look at how the term "scholium" is used in this edition of Euclid's Elements. (see for example the scholia in p.104).

Edit-2: Maybe it would be also of some interest to add that in greek, the word "Σχόλιο" has the same root with the greek word "Σχολείο" which means "School". (as has already been mentioned in a comment above, by user Pietro Majer).

  • Yes, this use of the word "scholium" from this edition of Euclid's Elements is, it seems to me, precisely what several commenters have tried to explain under the OP: a scholium is an explanatory note, a scholarly annotation, amplification, etc. It seems to me this is not precisely what the OP was asking about, which is about a further consequence of a line of argument used in a mathematical proof. (This is not to say your answer isn't useful for other reasons -- just that this additional piece of evidence does not support "scholium" as the sought-for word.) – Todd Trimble Feb 02 '17 at 01:10
  • @Todd Trimble, i generally agree. My original intention was not to encourage OP to use the term "scholium" but rather to provide some indications for the boundaries. Maybe I was not clear enough, so i've edited, hoping to be more concrete. – Konstantinos Kanakoglou Feb 02 '17 at 01:57
  • Ah! I hadn't read carefully your recent addition right before the bold-faced edit, where you spoke of "porism" (I thought you were recommending "scholium" in some of the previous revisions). So now I agree with your answer; thanks for the work you put into this. – Todd Trimble Feb 02 '17 at 02:20
  • 1
    By the way: this question, while at the moment closed, can't be "deleted", except under unusual circumstances as explained here: http://meta.stackexchange.com/a/5222. – Todd Trimble Feb 02 '17 at 02:54
14

Bourbaki defines a "scholie" in the preface of the Éléments de mathématiques as follows:

Sous le nom de « scholie », on trouvera quelquefois un commentaire d'un théorème particulièrement important.

I.e., a scholium (for Bourbaki) is a commentary to a particularly important theorem.

There aren't many in the treaty, but those that are seem to be non-mathematical, or meta-mathematical: essentially, they are a guidance on how to use the theorem or when to apply it, or an indication of a general proof technique. Something like "this theorem is useful for deriving results about foobars from the general theory of bazquxes by applying the frobnification functor and using the theorem to transfer the property". Not something formalizable as a mathematical statement.

Examples of scholia in Bourbaki are in A IV §2 nº3 or FVR VI §1 nº1 or INT IX §1 nº8. There is also one in AC VIII §3 nº3, but the latter seems to be just a corollary (of a corollary), so apparently younger Bourbaki authors didn't get the memo on what a scholium was supposed to be.

Gro-Tsen
  • 29,944
  • 4
  • 80
  • 335
  • 2
    This looks helpful, but (pardon my ignorance) what do 'A', 'FVR', and 'INT' signify? – Todd Trimble Feb 01 '17 at 06:52
  • 3
    @ToddTrimble those are abbreviations of titles from the French: A = Algebra, AC = Commutative Algebra, FVR = Functions of a Real Variable, INT = Integration – KConrad Feb 01 '17 at 07:04
  • (presumably you mean "treatise" not "treaty".) – Noam D. Elkies Feb 04 '17 at 03:41
  • 1
    @NoamD.Elkies Indeed! Sometimes it shows that English is not my native language. I'll leave this uncorrected, however, so as not to uselessly bump this question to the front page. – Gro-Tsen Feb 05 '17 at 17:44