<p>I have read the comments and reply, then I would like to give a demo in my way. We can discuss it.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>首先给出结论 （This indicate that we will prove it in later slides...）</p>
  
  <p><strong>对于给定的m（即为确定的元素数量）</strong>，多项式m! #PLR(r,s,n;m)具有以下特点：  </p>
  
  <ul>
  <li>是三元多项式，</li>
  <li>是对称多项式(即#PLR(r,s,n;m)=#PLR(s,r,n;m)<strong>等</strong>)， （I'm just curious, what do you mean by 等 here? Does it mean #PLR(r,s,n;m)=#PLR(r,n,s;m) and so on?）</li>
  <li>是整数系数多项式，</li>
  <li>是3m次多项式。</li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-09T13:52:36.017Z
(a) actually it was proved on previous slides, we prove more on subsequent slides (for which I need these intermediate conclusions); is this a problem?  (b) I didn't want to write #PLR(r,s,n;m)=#PLR(s,r,n;m)=#PLR(n,r,s;m)=#PLR(r,n,s;m)=#PLR(s,n,r;m)=#PLR(n,s,r;m) in full, as it's a property of symmetric polynomials (称多项式) (c) I see I've left off a 的.
Becky 李蓓
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-09T14:00:45.747Z
(a) OK, not a big problem. But we use 首先 or 先, sometimes it will indicate something will happen later... Anyway, it depends on context. (b) Make sense. (c) Still not a big problem, but just a little bit weird when I read this...
Bruce Huang
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-09T14:40:51.067Z
symmetric polynomials 对称多项式。“称多项式” means "It is named 多项式"。
Bruce Huang
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-16T02:10:26.610Z
具有如下特点 -> 具有如下性质
tsh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-09T13:34:12.483Z
2018-07-09T13:34:12.483Z
Bruce Huang
<p>I ve made great adjustments</p>

<p>先给结论:</p>

<p>对于元素数量m给定的情况，m!#PLR(r,s,n;m)具有如下性质:</p>

<ul>
<li><p>为r,s,n三元多项式，</p></li>
<li><p>为关于r,s,n的对称多项式(即给r,s,n的任意排列依次替换原变量，多项式不变)，</p></li>
<li><p>为整系数多项式，</p></li>
<li><p>为3m次多项式。</p></li>
</ul>

<p>These changes are made according to my received tradition in math class.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-11T15:05:10.463Z
Good. But I still insist on using "先给出结论". And "对于给定的元素数量m" sounds formal.
Bruce Huang
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-10T00:59:28.207Z
2018-07-10T00:59:28.207Z
Toosky Hierot
<p>"先结论" is too much colloquial.And even in a colloquial situation,this expression is kind of confusing and impolite from my perspective though we will use it sometimes.</p>

<p>“是整系数多项式” or “是个整系数的多项式” 。
There is no such a structure as “是个……的” in the 普通话's grammer.</p>

<p>"and" is not necessary.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-09T12:13:06.540Z
2018-07-09T12:13:06.540Z
dubina
<p>From my talk's slides, I have:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ClvMf.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ClvMf.png" alt="image of my talk slides, transcribed below"></a></p>
  
  <p>先结论...</p>
  
  <p>对于给定m（即为确定的元素数量），m! #PLR(r,s,n;m)是个<br>
  - 三元多项式，<br>
  - 对称多项式(即#PLR(r,s,n;m)=#PLR(s,r,n;m)等)，<br>
  - 整数系数的，<br>
  - 3m次多项式。</p>
</blockquote>

<p>(I have some students here helping me debug this, but it's mostly my writing.)</p>

<p>I'm happy with the content, but I'm not comfortable with the grammar.  I'm concerned about two things:</p>

<ol>
<li>A mismatch between 是个... and the third item 整数系数的 ("has integer coefficients"), but maybe this is okay.</li>
<li>The lack of an "and" here (we would normally include it in English).</li>
</ol>

<p><strong>Question</strong>: In my bullet list, is ...是个... [something]的 problematic, and do I need an "and"?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-09T09:41:09.017Z
I intend to pause and discuss each item one by one.
Becky 李蓓
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-10T01:21:38.660Z
I was just a little bit wondering that as in your another question you defined notation PLR(r,s,n;m) to be a subgraph but here obviously you r using operator  # to calculate the cardinality, which means notation PLR(r,s,n;m) is the set of subgraphs with such properties. I don't know whether It's okay, or maybe you have considered this issue, then I am sorry for my question.
Toosky Hierot
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-10T01:57:19.013Z
PLR(r,s,n;m) is the set of partial Latin rectangles (a kind of combinatorial matrix), and each partial Latin rectangle has a correspondence with an m-vertex n-colored subgraph of K<sub>r</sub>□K<sub>s</sub> (which arises in [the other question](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/30623/8099), looking at the right-hand side as a 3 by 4 matrix).  To save notation, we also use PLR(r,s,n;m) as shorthand to refer to a member of PLR(r,s,n;m).  And, yeah, I just add # in front to mean "the number of".  [These are talk slides: So I aim to minimize text, and explain things verbally.]
Becky 李蓓
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-08-09T01:00:44.153Z
Related: [Is the use of a conjunction between the second-last and last word in a list a natural Chinese construction? (E.g. 現在我兼任總經理、技術官和財務官。)](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/29330)
Becky 李蓓
<grammar><punctuation><conjunction>
In my bullet list, is ...是个... [something]的 problematic, and do I need an "and"?
# In my bullet list, is ...是个... [something]的 problematic, and do I need an "and"?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-07-09)

From my talk's slides, I have:

> [![image of my talk slides, transcribed below](https://i.sstatic.net/ClvMf.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/ClvMf.png)
>
> 先结论...
>
> 对于给定m（即为确定的元素数量），m! #PLR(r,s,n;m)是个  
> - 三元多项式，  
> - 对称多项式(即#PLR(r,s,n;m)=#PLR(s,r,n;m)等)，  
> - 整数系数的，  
> - 3m次多项式。

(I have some students here helping me debug this, but it's mostly my writing.)

I'm happy with the content, but I'm not comfortable with the grammar. I'm concerned about two things:

1. A mismatch between 是个... and the third item 整数系数的 ("has integer coefficients"), but maybe this is okay.
2. The lack of an "and" here (we would normally include it in English).

**Question**: In my bullet list, is ...是个... [something]的 problematic, and do I need an "and"?

**Tags:** grammar, punctuation, conjunction

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I intend to pause and discuss each item one by one.  
> **username_1**: I was just a little bit wondering that as in your another question you defined notation PLR(r,s,n;m) to be a subgraph but here obviously you r using operator  # to calculate the cardinality, which means notation PLR(r,s,n;m) is the set of subgraphs with such properties. I don't know whether It's okay, or maybe you have considered this issue, then I am sorry for my question.  
> **username_0**: PLR(r,s,n;m) is the set of partial Latin rectangles (a kind of combinatorial matrix), and each partial Latin rectangle has a correspondence with an m-vertex n-colored subgraph of K<sub>r</sub>□K<sub>s</sub> (which arises in [the other question](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/30623/8099), looking at the right-hand side as a 3 by 4 matrix).  To save notation, we also use PLR(r,s,n;m) as shorthand to refer to a member of PLR(r,s,n;m).  And, yeah, I just add # in front to mean "the number of".  [These are talk slides: So I aim to minimize text, and explain things verbally.]  
> **username_0**: Related: [Is the use of a conjunction between the second-last and last word in a list a natural Chinese construction? (E.g. 現在我兼任總經理、技術官和財務官。)](https://chinese.stackexchange.com/q/29330)  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2018-07-09. Score: 2

I have read the comments and reply, then I would like to give a demo in my way. We can discuss it.

> 首先给出结论 （This indicate that we will prove it in later slides...）
>
> **对于给定的m（即为确定的元素数量）**，多项式m! #PLR(r,s,n;m)具有以下特点：
>
> * 是三元多项式，
> * 是对称多项式(即#PLR(r,s,n;m)=#PLR(s,r,n;m)**等**)， （I'm just curious, what do you mean by 等 here? Does it mean #PLR(r,s,n;m)=#PLR(r,n,s;m) and so on?）
> * 是整数系数多项式，
> * 是3m次多项式。

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: (a) actually it was proved on previous slides, we prove more on subsequent slides (for which I need these intermediate conclusions); is this a problem?  (b) I didn't want to write #PLR(r,s,n;m)=#PLR(s,r,n;m)=#PLR(n,r,s;m)=#PLR(r,n,s;m)=#PLR(s,n,r;m)=#PLR(n,s,r;m) in full, as it's a property of symmetric polynomials (称多项式) (c) I see I've left off a 的.  
> **username_2**: (a) OK, not a big problem. But we use 首先 or 先, sometimes it will indicate something will happen later... Anyway, it depends on context. (b) Make sense. (c) Still not a big problem, but just a little bit weird when I read this...  
> **username_2**: symmetric polynomials 对称多项式。“称多项式” means "It is named 多项式"。  
> **username_3**: 具有如下特点 -> 具有如下性质  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-07-10. Score: 1

I ve made great adjustments

先给结论:

对于元素数量m给定的情况，m!#PLR(r,s,n;m)具有如下性质:

* 为r,s,n三元多项式，
* 为关于r,s,n的对称多项式(即给r,s,n的任意排列依次替换原变量，多项式不变)，
* 为整系数多项式，
* 为3m次多项式。

These changes are made according to my received tradition in math class.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Good. But I still insist on using "先给出结论". And "对于给定的元素数量m" sounds formal.  

---

### Answer by username_4 on 2018-07-09. Score: 1

"先结论" is too much colloquial.And even in a colloquial situation,this expression is kind of confusing and impolite from my perspective though we will use it sometimes.

“是整系数多项式” or “是个整系数的多项式” 。
There is no such a structure as “是个……的” in the 普通话's grammer.

"and" is not necessary.


---

