modulo

13:51 Dec 31, 2012 

The ST is about programming - and the underlying maths. Whoever wrote the ST wasn't into belles-lettres or even less into slang. It seems to me a rather odd method, when dealing with a highly specialised term used in the context where it originated from, to look at the meanings given to it outside of its "native speciality". You wouldn't try to understand the origin of the Universe by watching the "The Big Bang Theory" sitcom?
Especially when it’s not difficult to see why “modulo” was used.
The starting point is one program. This programme responds to some specific inputs by producing desired outputs. You start changing the innards of this program (="les étapes intermédiaires") and you end up with a new program that is "équivalent" i.e. looks the same from the outside – (same inputs will produce the same outputs, but more efficiently – that's the point of the whole exercise, btw).
One variable changing/increasing until the new value is "equivalent" to the initial value “modulo" the changes? Looks to me like a case of "modular arithmetic", only the “variable” is a not number, or a vector, or a matrix but the whole of this programme.

21:28 Dec 29, 2012 

The usage with which I'm familiar is pretty much what I put in my answer below. I'm not sure where/when I first came across it - probably in the '80s. OED has several examples e.g. "Which we choose is entirely arbitrary, but (modulo the assumption that any run covers a line segment) it determines how we answer the question [Jrnl. Philos. 59 776]". That's consistent with either of our answers (which aren't actually very different!).

OED is very authoritative and to be trusted as against almost anybody [modulo Chomsky, Pinker and myself :-) ]

21:13 Dec 29, 2012 

Thank you for your response!
Another question... Are aware of the controversy on LanguageHat (and possibly elsewhere as well) regarding "modulo" and its definition in the OED? I extract, freely and at will:
"I note that the OED's (a) and (b) actually define opposite meanings! (a) is the one I'm more used to, being approximately synonymous with 'ignoring' or 'disregarding', ie "not taking into account". Presumably (b) ("taking into account") is a further development by people unaware of the mathematical jargon origins of the word..."
"OED divides the extended senses into two, as you show:
(a) With respect to an equivalence defined by (some feature), disregarding differences indicated by (some unimportant feature); and
(b) taking into account (a particular consideration, aspect, assumption, etc.) [...]
I still think modulo is absurdly unruly, and best avoided. A word that has three senses, so that the need to differentiate by context is an annoying distraction at best (for those who know the senses), and impossible at worst (for many highly competent users of English who, like LH yesterday, have not come across it before)."
http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002875.php

21:03 Dec 29, 2012 

I think I'm the one who is confused. I thought they were referring to "modulo" but it seems to be "module lunaire". "modulo" just occurs later in its usual Math sense.

20:51 Dec 29, 2012 

I'm out of space in the peer comment area, so I'm posting my comment / question here... While I greatly appreciate that Larousse recognizes "American" (yay!), I don't see how the "module lunaire" ("traduction de l'américain") pertains to the source text. What did I miss? :confused: