Re: What is a better word for "de-duplication"?

Honestly, if it were me (assuming I even decided to fight that
battle) I would also always say "commonly called 'deduplication'", or
something similar, to signal most readers that I was, in fact, just
using a specialized term to describe something they already know about.

After repeating this sufficient number of times people will start to
use the obviously better word, then the "aka" part will naturally wean
out. Then hopefully people who write books will use the better phrase
in their next book.

Apologies to Tommie and thanks for her patience. I realize we are on
the edge of what is on-topic and, as it appears everybody who wanted
to have their say did so, I would appeal to close this thread unless
someone finds a strikingly more appropriate phrase.

Personally, I find the benefit of such terminological discussions not
only in the final result but also in the fact that they make us think
what is the essence of the thing being named.

--
Cheers,
Dimitre Novatchev
---------------------------------------
Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence.
---------------------------------------
To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk

Hey Dimitre,

At 01:57 PM 8/28/2006, you wrote:
>>Not bad -- for the advanced student, again.
>>
>>"Identification" or "unique identification" might be better for beginners.
>
>Then I think
>
>    "id-factorisation"
>
>or just
>
>   "factorisation"
>
>(because we know what kind of factorisation takes place) is better
>than de-duplication.

Except for the part about having to explain it to everyone.... :-)

Honestly, if it were me (assuming I even decided to fight that
battle) I would also always say "commonly called 'deduplication'", or
something similar, to signal most readers that I was, in fact, just
using a specialized term to describe something they already know about.

Cheers,
Wendell