Using “we†in a paper. [duplicate]
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Using “we have†in maths papers
12 answers
Why do single-author math papers use “we†instead of “I� [duplicate]
4 answers
I'm the sole author of a paper and in my introduction I've written:
We are able to talk about... Doing so we manage to capture ... We accomplish this by embedding...
and I'm wondering whether it's correct to talk about myself in the plural like that, similar to the way that mathematicians tend to write when talking about some mathematical fact or proof. If not do I just write things like "I am able to talk about"? Because that just sounds odd.
soft-question publishing
asked Aug 24 at 0:56
Math chiller
198111
marked as duplicate by Mike Pierce, Hans Lundmark, user91500, Arnaud D., Theoretical Economist Aug 24 at 13:21
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Using “we have†in maths papers
12 answers
Why do single-author math papers use “we†instead of “I� [duplicate]
4 answers
I'm the sole author of a paper and in my introduction I've written:
We are able to talk about... Doing so we manage to capture ... We accomplish this by embedding...
and I'm wondering whether it's correct to talk about myself in the plural like that, similar to the way that mathematicians tend to write when talking about some mathematical fact or proof. If not do I just write things like "I am able to talk about"? Because that just sounds odd.
soft-question publishing
asked Aug 24 at 0:56
Math chiller
198111
marked as duplicate by Mike Pierce, Hans Lundmark, user91500, Arnaud D., Theoretical Economist Aug 24 at 13:21
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
2
I've been in this position before. As odd as it feels, writing withweusually is the way to go.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 24 at 1:00
3
(1) I have always argued that the "we" here is a special "mathematical we". It is not the singular "royal we", but it is also not a "we-the-authors we". My view is that mathematics is a collective activity of humanity, and that once a result is prove, that result holds true for all of us. Hence the "mathematical we" is a "we" which implies that humanity as a whole has accomplished and understood something.
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 1:19
1
(2) That being said, while use of "we" in mathematical writing is quite common, it is a phrase which I have been trying to remove from my writing as much as possible. It is almost always possible shift to the passive voice (whatever Microsoft's grammar checker believes, this is pretty common style in scientific writing) or otherwise find a way to avoid the pronoun "we" (or, possibly any pronoun at all).
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 1:19
1
@XanderHenderson The use of 'we' is standard across just about all English math journals as far as I know, even for single authors.
– Jair Taylor
Aug 24 at 1:27
1
@JairTaylor Indeed. That is what I was alluding to when I said that it is quite common. It is pretty standard in journals, monographs, textbooks, course notes, and so on. I still try to avoid it–it may be the standard style, but I find that my own mathematical writing is often made clearer or more concise when I try to weed out the pronouns. As you can no doubt infer, I am somewhat (perhaps overly) verbose. I also try to avoid phrases such as "clearly", "obviously", and "it is trivial." Again, this cuts down on verbosity and tends to tighten up the writing. I need all the help I can get.
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 2:14
 |Â
show 4 more comments
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
This question already has an answer here:
Using “we have†in maths papers
12 answers
Why do single-author math papers use “we†instead of “I� [duplicate]
4 answers
I'm the sole author of a paper and in my introduction I've written:
We are able to talk about... Doing so we manage to capture ... We accomplish this by embedding...
and I'm wondering whether it's correct to talk about myself in the plural like that, similar to the way that mathematicians tend to write when talking about some mathematical fact or proof. If not do I just write things like "I am able to talk about"? Because that just sounds odd.
soft-question publishing
asked Aug 24 at 0:56
Math chiller
198111
This question already has an answer here:
Using “we have†in maths papers
12 answers
Why do single-author math papers use “we†instead of “I� [duplicate]
4 answers
I'm the sole author of a paper and in my introduction I've written:
We are able to talk about... Doing so we manage to capture ... We accomplish this by embedding...
and I'm wondering whether it's correct to talk about myself in the plural like that, similar to the way that mathematicians tend to write when talking about some mathematical fact or proof. If not do I just write things like "I am able to talk about"? Because that just sounds odd.
This question already has an answer here:
Using “we have†in maths papers
12 answers
Why do single-author math papers use “we†instead of “I� [duplicate]
4 answers
soft-question publishing
asked Aug 24 at 0:56
Math chiller
198111
asked Aug 24 at 0:56
Math chiller
198111
asked Aug 24 at 0:56
Math chiller
198111
asked Aug 24 at 0:56
Math chiller
198111
198111
marked as duplicate by Mike Pierce, Hans Lundmark, user91500, Arnaud D., Theoretical Economist Aug 24 at 13:21
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
marked as duplicate by Mike Pierce, Hans Lundmark, user91500, Arnaud D., Theoretical Economist Aug 24 at 13:21
This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.
2
I've been in this position before. As odd as it feels, writing withweusually is the way to go.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 24 at 1:00
3
(1) I have always argued that the "we" here is a special "mathematical we". It is not the singular "royal we", but it is also not a "we-the-authors we". My view is that mathematics is a collective activity of humanity, and that once a result is prove, that result holds true for all of us. Hence the "mathematical we" is a "we" which implies that humanity as a whole has accomplished and understood something.
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 1:19
1
(2) That being said, while use of "we" in mathematical writing is quite common, it is a phrase which I have been trying to remove from my writing as much as possible. It is almost always possible shift to the passive voice (whatever Microsoft's grammar checker believes, this is pretty common style in scientific writing) or otherwise find a way to avoid the pronoun "we" (or, possibly any pronoun at all).
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 1:19
1
@XanderHenderson The use of 'we' is standard across just about all English math journals as far as I know, even for single authors.
– Jair Taylor
Aug 24 at 1:27
1
@JairTaylor Indeed. That is what I was alluding to when I said that it is quite common. It is pretty standard in journals, monographs, textbooks, course notes, and so on. I still try to avoid it–it may be the standard style, but I find that my own mathematical writing is often made clearer or more concise when I try to weed out the pronouns. As you can no doubt infer, I am somewhat (perhaps overly) verbose. I also try to avoid phrases such as "clearly", "obviously", and "it is trivial." Again, this cuts down on verbosity and tends to tighten up the writing. I need all the help I can get.
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 2:14
 |Â
show 4 more comments
2
I've been in this position before. As odd as it feels, writing withweusually is the way to go.
– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 24 at 1:00
3
(1) I have always argued that the "we" here is a special "mathematical we". It is not the singular "royal we", but it is also not a "we-the-authors we". My view is that mathematics is a collective activity of humanity, and that once a result is prove, that result holds true for all of us. Hence the "mathematical we" is a "we" which implies that humanity as a whole has accomplished and understood something.
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 1:19
1
(2) That being said, while use of "we" in mathematical writing is quite common, it is a phrase which I have been trying to remove from my writing as much as possible. It is almost always possible shift to the passive voice (whatever Microsoft's grammar checker believes, this is pretty common style in scientific writing) or otherwise find a way to avoid the pronoun "we" (or, possibly any pronoun at all).
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 1:19
1
@XanderHenderson The use of 'we' is standard across just about all English math journals as far as I know, even for single authors.
– Jair Taylor
Aug 24 at 1:27
1
@JairTaylor Indeed. That is what I was alluding to when I said that it is quite common. It is pretty standard in journals, monographs, textbooks, course notes, and so on. I still try to avoid it–it may be the standard style, but I find that my own mathematical writing is often made clearer or more concise when I try to weed out the pronouns. As you can no doubt infer, I am somewhat (perhaps overly) verbose. I also try to avoid phrases such as "clearly", "obviously", and "it is trivial." Again, this cuts down on verbosity and tends to tighten up the writing. I need all the help I can get.
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 2:14
2
2
I've been in this position before. As odd as it feels, writing with
we usually is the way to go.– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 24 at 1:00
I've been in this position before. As odd as it feels, writing with
we usually is the way to go.– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 24 at 1:00
3
3
(1) I have always argued that the "we" here is a special "mathematical we". It is not the singular "royal we", but it is also not a "we-the-authors we". My view is that mathematics is a collective activity of humanity, and that once a result is prove, that result holds true for all of us. Hence the "mathematical we" is a "we" which implies that humanity as a whole has accomplished and understood something.
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 1:19
(1) I have always argued that the "we" here is a special "mathematical we". It is not the singular "royal we", but it is also not a "we-the-authors we". My view is that mathematics is a collective activity of humanity, and that once a result is prove, that result holds true for all of us. Hence the "mathematical we" is a "we" which implies that humanity as a whole has accomplished and understood something.
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 1:19
1
1
(2) That being said, while use of "we" in mathematical writing is quite common, it is a phrase which I have been trying to remove from my writing as much as possible. It is almost always possible shift to the passive voice (whatever Microsoft's grammar checker believes, this is pretty common style in scientific writing) or otherwise find a way to avoid the pronoun "we" (or, possibly any pronoun at all).
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 1:19
(2) That being said, while use of "we" in mathematical writing is quite common, it is a phrase which I have been trying to remove from my writing as much as possible. It is almost always possible shift to the passive voice (whatever Microsoft's grammar checker believes, this is pretty common style in scientific writing) or otherwise find a way to avoid the pronoun "we" (or, possibly any pronoun at all).
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 1:19
1
1
@XanderHenderson The use of 'we' is standard across just about all English math journals as far as I know, even for single authors.
– Jair Taylor
Aug 24 at 1:27
@XanderHenderson The use of 'we' is standard across just about all English math journals as far as I know, even for single authors.
– Jair Taylor
Aug 24 at 1:27
1
1
@JairTaylor Indeed. That is what I was alluding to when I said that it is quite common. It is pretty standard in journals, monographs, textbooks, course notes, and so on. I still try to avoid it–it may be the standard style, but I find that my own mathematical writing is often made clearer or more concise when I try to weed out the pronouns. As you can no doubt infer, I am somewhat (perhaps overly) verbose. I also try to avoid phrases such as "clearly", "obviously", and "it is trivial." Again, this cuts down on verbosity and tends to tighten up the writing. I need all the help I can get.
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 2:14
@JairTaylor Indeed. That is what I was alluding to when I said that it is quite common. It is pretty standard in journals, monographs, textbooks, course notes, and so on. I still try to avoid it–it may be the standard style, but I find that my own mathematical writing is often made clearer or more concise when I try to weed out the pronouns. As you can no doubt infer, I am somewhat (perhaps overly) verbose. I also try to avoid phrases such as "clearly", "obviously", and "it is trivial." Again, this cuts down on verbosity and tends to tighten up the writing. I need all the help I can get.
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 2:14
 |Â
show 4 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
As odd as you may feel it is, using first person singular is usually frowned upon, as we, and first person plural is preferred. Additionally, third person, in the form of "The author," can also be used, especially with acknowledgements (The author would like to thank x,y,z for their contributions).
answered Aug 24 at 1:02
Rushabh Mehta
1,493218
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Yes, this is completely standard. In fact, the first-person singular is almost never used in technical papers. Even in the acknowledgments, it's common to say things like "The author would like to thank..."
You can think of the 'we' here as referring to you and the reader, working together.
answered Aug 24 at 1:00
Jair Taylor
8,48932144
I usually think of it as us working together when talking about actual math, but it doesn't seem to apply as much in meta discussion, it seems like a reasonable way to do things I guess.
– Math chiller
Aug 24 at 1:10
2
Alternately, if you are feeling autocratic you can think of it as the royal we. :)
– Jair Taylor
Aug 24 at 1:13
add a comment |Â
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
As odd as you may feel it is, using first person singular is usually frowned upon, as we, and first person plural is preferred. Additionally, third person, in the form of "The author," can also be used, especially with acknowledgements (The author would like to thank x,y,z for their contributions).
answered Aug 24 at 1:02
Rushabh Mehta
1,493218
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
As odd as you may feel it is, using first person singular is usually frowned upon, as we, and first person plural is preferred. Additionally, third person, in the form of "The author," can also be used, especially with acknowledgements (The author would like to thank x,y,z for their contributions).
answered Aug 24 at 1:02
Rushabh Mehta
1,493218
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
As odd as you may feel it is, using first person singular is usually frowned upon, as we, and first person plural is preferred. Additionally, third person, in the form of "The author," can also be used, especially with acknowledgements (The author would like to thank x,y,z for their contributions).
answered Aug 24 at 1:02
Rushabh Mehta
1,493218
As odd as you may feel it is, using first person singular is usually frowned upon, as we, and first person plural is preferred. Additionally, third person, in the form of "The author," can also be used, especially with acknowledgements (The author would like to thank x,y,z for their contributions).
answered Aug 24 at 1:02
Rushabh Mehta
1,493218
answered Aug 24 at 1:02
Rushabh Mehta
1,493218
answered Aug 24 at 1:02
Rushabh Mehta
1,493218
answered Aug 24 at 1:02
Rushabh Mehta
1,493218
1,493218
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Yes, this is completely standard. In fact, the first-person singular is almost never used in technical papers. Even in the acknowledgments, it's common to say things like "The author would like to thank..."
You can think of the 'we' here as referring to you and the reader, working together.
answered Aug 24 at 1:00
Jair Taylor
8,48932144
I usually think of it as us working together when talking about actual math, but it doesn't seem to apply as much in meta discussion, it seems like a reasonable way to do things I guess.
– Math chiller
Aug 24 at 1:10
2
Alternately, if you are feeling autocratic you can think of it as the royal we. :)
– Jair Taylor
Aug 24 at 1:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
Yes, this is completely standard. In fact, the first-person singular is almost never used in technical papers. Even in the acknowledgments, it's common to say things like "The author would like to thank..."
You can think of the 'we' here as referring to you and the reader, working together.
answered Aug 24 at 1:00
Jair Taylor
8,48932144
I usually think of it as us working together when talking about actual math, but it doesn't seem to apply as much in meta discussion, it seems like a reasonable way to do things I guess.
– Math chiller
Aug 24 at 1:10
2
Alternately, if you are feeling autocratic you can think of it as the royal we. :)
– Jair Taylor
Aug 24 at 1:13
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Yes, this is completely standard. In fact, the first-person singular is almost never used in technical papers. Even in the acknowledgments, it's common to say things like "The author would like to thank..."
You can think of the 'we' here as referring to you and the reader, working together.
answered Aug 24 at 1:00
Jair Taylor
8,48932144
Yes, this is completely standard. In fact, the first-person singular is almost never used in technical papers. Even in the acknowledgments, it's common to say things like "The author would like to thank..."
You can think of the 'we' here as referring to you and the reader, working together.
answered Aug 24 at 1:00
Jair Taylor
8,48932144
answered Aug 24 at 1:00
Jair Taylor
8,48932144
answered Aug 24 at 1:00
Jair Taylor
8,48932144
answered Aug 24 at 1:00
Jair Taylor
8,48932144
8,48932144
I usually think of it as us working together when talking about actual math, but it doesn't seem to apply as much in meta discussion, it seems like a reasonable way to do things I guess.
– Math chiller
Aug 24 at 1:10
2
Alternately, if you are feeling autocratic you can think of it as the royal we. :)
– Jair Taylor
Aug 24 at 1:13
add a comment |Â
I usually think of it as us working together when talking about actual math, but it doesn't seem to apply as much in meta discussion, it seems like a reasonable way to do things I guess.
– Math chiller
Aug 24 at 1:10
2
Alternately, if you are feeling autocratic you can think of it as the royal we. :)
– Jair Taylor
Aug 24 at 1:13
I usually think of it as us working together when talking about actual math, but it doesn't seem to apply as much in meta discussion, it seems like a reasonable way to do things I guess.
– Math chiller
Aug 24 at 1:10
I usually think of it as us working together when talking about actual math, but it doesn't seem to apply as much in meta discussion, it seems like a reasonable way to do things I guess.
– Math chiller
Aug 24 at 1:10
2
2
Alternately, if you are feeling autocratic you can think of it as the royal we. :)
– Jair Taylor
Aug 24 at 1:13
Alternately, if you are feeling autocratic you can think of it as the royal we. :)
– Jair Taylor
Aug 24 at 1:13
add a comment |Â
2
I've been in this position before. As odd as it feels, writing with
weusually is the way to go.– Rushabh Mehta
Aug 24 at 1:00
3
(1) I have always argued that the "we" here is a special "mathematical we". It is not the singular "royal we", but it is also not a "we-the-authors we". My view is that mathematics is a collective activity of humanity, and that once a result is prove, that result holds true for all of us. Hence the "mathematical we" is a "we" which implies that humanity as a whole has accomplished and understood something.
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 1:19
1
(2) That being said, while use of "we" in mathematical writing is quite common, it is a phrase which I have been trying to remove from my writing as much as possible. It is almost always possible shift to the passive voice (whatever Microsoft's grammar checker believes, this is pretty common style in scientific writing) or otherwise find a way to avoid the pronoun "we" (or, possibly any pronoun at all).
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 1:19
1
@XanderHenderson The use of 'we' is standard across just about all English math journals as far as I know, even for single authors.
– Jair Taylor
Aug 24 at 1:27
1
@JairTaylor Indeed. That is what I was alluding to when I said that it is quite common. It is pretty standard in journals, monographs, textbooks, course notes, and so on. I still try to avoid it–it may be the standard style, but I find that my own mathematical writing is often made clearer or more concise when I try to weed out the pronouns. As you can no doubt infer, I am somewhat (perhaps overly) verbose. I also try to avoid phrases such as "clearly", "obviously", and "it is trivial." Again, this cuts down on verbosity and tends to tighten up the writing. I need all the help I can get.
– Xander Henderson
Aug 24 at 2:14