The following sentences are from here [1]:

```
1. This theory of topological quantum chemistry provides a description of the universal (across materials), global properties of all possible band structures and (weakly correlated) materials, consisting of a graph-theoretic description of momentum (reciprocal) space and a complementary group-theoretic description in real space.

2. For all 230 crystal symmetry groups, we classify the possible band structures that arise from local atomic orbitals, and show which are topologically non-trivial.
```

In 1.: With so many "of" being used, I feel a little confused and can't understand it clearly. Any better rewritten suggestion will be greatly appreciated.

In 2. In the wording "show which are topologically non-trivial.", can I write it as follows?

"show which is topologically non-trivial."

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23268

Regards,
HZ

On 3/2/2022 1:48 AM, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> The following sentences are from here [1]:

> ``` 1. This theory of topological quantum chemistry provides a
> description of the universal (across materials), global properties of
> all possible band structures and (weakly correlated) materials,
> consisting of a graph-theoretic description of momentum (reciprocal)
> space and a complementary group-theoretic description in real space.
>
> 2. For all 230 crystal symmetry groups, we classify the possible band
> structures that arise from local atomic orbitals, and show which are
> topologically non-trivial. ```

Those uses of "of" seem reasonable to me.

> In 1.: With so many "of" being used, I feel a little confused and
> can't understand it clearly. Any better rewritten suggestion will be
> greatly appreciated.

> In 2. In the wording "show which are topologically non-trivial.", can
> I write it as follows?

> "show which is topologically non-trivial."

> [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23268

It should be "are", unless you want to imply that there is only one
non-trivial structure. If you do, then "show which one is" would make
it clearer.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:56:27 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 1:48 AM, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The following sentences are from here [1]:
>
> > ``` 1. This theory of topological quantum chemistry provides a
> > description of the universal (across materials), global properties of
> > all possible band structures and (weakly correlated) materials,
> > consisting of a graph-theoretic description of momentum (reciprocal)
> > space and a complementary group-theoretic description in real space.
> >
> > 2. For all 230 crystal symmetry groups, we classify the possible band
> > structures that arise from local atomic orbitals, and show which are
> > topologically non-trivial. ```

> Those uses of "of" seem reasonable to me.

I'm reminded of a kid in my high school French class who said he got lost
in all the "que"s. That wouldn't be a problem for you either.

The last "of" in 1 should be "in", by the way.

> > In 1.: With so many "of" being used, I feel a little confused and
> > can't understand it clearly. Any better rewritten suggestion will be
> > greatly appreciated.
>
> > In 2. In the wording "show which are topologically non-trivial.", can
> > I write it as follows?
>
> > "show which is topologically non-trivial."
>
> > [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23268

> It should be "are", unless you want to imply that there is only one
> non-trivial structure. If you do, then "show which one is" would make
> it clearer.

Agreed.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 11:48:21 PM UTC-7, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> The following sentences are from here [1]:
>
> ```
> 1. This theory of topological quantum chemistry provides a description of the universal (across materials), global properties of all possible band structures and (weakly correlated) materials, consisting of a graph-theoretic description of momentum (reciprocal) space and a complementary group-theoretic description in real space.
....

> In 1.: With so many "of" being used, I feel a little confused and can't understand it clearly. Any better rewritten suggestion will be greatly appreciated.
....

> [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23268

Removing "of"s from there isn't easy. Maybe

"This theory of topological quantum chemistry describes the material-independent,
global properties of all possible band structures and weakly correlated materials.
The theory has two complementary parts: one based on graph theory in momentum
space and one based on group theory in real space.

--
Jerry Friedman

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 9:51:37 AM UTC-5, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:56:27 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> > On 3/2/2022 1:48 AM, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > The following sentences are from here [1]:
> >
> > > ``` 1. This theory of topological quantum chemistry provides a
> > > description of the universal (across materials), global properties of
> > > all possible band structures and (weakly correlated) materials,
> > > consisting of a graph-theoretic description of momentum (reciprocal)
> > > space and a complementary group-theoretic description in real space.
> > >
> > > 2. For all 230 crystal symmetry groups, we classify the possible band
> > > structures that arise from local atomic orbitals, and show which are
> > > topologically non-trivial. ```
>
> > Those uses of "of" seem reasonable to me.
> I'm reminded of a kid in my high school French class who said he got lost
> in all the "que"s.

Yes. With them, use 'que' 'when the word that follows is (or represents) a person or thing/s' and use 'qui' when the word that follows is (or represents) a verb.

On 3/2/2022 9:51 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:56:27 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 1:48 AM, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> The following sentences are from here [1]:

>>> ``` 1. This theory of topological quantum chemistry provides a
>>> description of the universal (across materials), global
>>> properties of all possible band structures and (weakly
>>> correlated) materials, consisting of a graph-theoretic
>>> description of momentum (reciprocal) space and a complementary
>>> group-theoretic description in real space.

>>> 2. For all 230 crystal symmetry groups, we classify the possible
>>> band structures that arise from local atomic orbitals, and show
>>> which are topologically non-trivial. ```

>> Those uses of "of" seem reasonable to me.

> I'm reminded of a kid in my high school French class who said he got
> lost in all the "que"s. That wouldn't be a problem for you either.

> The last "of" in 1 should be "in", by the way.

Because it refers to "description"? I agree that "in" would be correct,
but I don't see an objection to using "of" there.

>>> In 1.: With so many "of" being used, I feel a little confused
>>> and can't understand it clearly. Any better rewritten suggestion
>>> will be greatly appreciated.

>>> In 2. In the wording "show which are topologically non-trivial.",
>>> can I write it as follows?

>>> "show which is topologically non-trivial."

>>> [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23268

>> It should be "are", unless you want to imply that there is only
>> one non-trivial structure. If you do, then "show which one is"
>> would make it clearer.

> Agreed.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:56:27 PM UTC+8, CDB wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 1:48 AM, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The following sentences are from here [1]:
>
> > ``` 1. This theory of topological quantum chemistry provides a
> > description of the universal (across materials), global properties of
> > all possible band structures and (weakly correlated) materials,
> > consisting of a graph-theoretic description of momentum (reciprocal)
> > space and a complementary group-theoretic description in real space.
> >
> > 2. For all 230 crystal symmetry groups, we classify the possible band
> > structures that arise from local atomic orbitals, and show which are
> > topologically non-trivial. ```
> Those uses of "of" seem reasonable to me.
> > In 1.: With so many "of" being used, I feel a little confused and
> > can't understand it clearly. Any better rewritten suggestion will be
> > greatly appreciated.
>
> > In 2. In the wording "show which are topologically non-trivial.", can
> > I write it as follows?
>
> > "show which is topologically non-trivial."
>
> > [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23268
> It should be "are", unless you want to imply that there is only one
> non-trivial structure. If you do, then "show which one is" would make
> it clearer.

I see. What the original author wants to express is:

"show which ones are topologically non-trivial."

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 11:00:23 PM UTC+8, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 11:48:21 PM UTC-7, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > The following sentences are from here [1]:
> >
> > ```
> > 1. This theory of topological quantum chemistry provides a description of the universal (across materials), global properties of all possible band structures and (weakly correlated) materials, consisting of a graph-theoretic description of momentum (reciprocal) space and a complementary group-theoretic description in real space.
> ...
> > In 1.: With so many "of" being used, I feel a little confused and can't understand it clearly. Any better rewritten suggestion will be greatly appreciated.
> ...
>
> > [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature23268
>
> Removing "of"s from there isn't easy. Maybe
>
> "This theory of topological quantum chemistry describes the material-independent,
> global properties of all possible band structures and weakly correlated materials.
> The theory has two complementary parts: one based on graph theory in momentum
> space and one based on group theory in real space.

Nice paraphrasing. One possible touch up:

.... one based on graph theory in momentum space and the other [based] on group theory in real space.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:38:40 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 9:51 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:56:27 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> >> On 3/2/2022 1:48 AM, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> The following sentences are from here [1]:
>
> >>> ``` 1. This theory of topological quantum chemistry provides a
> >>> description of the universal (across materials), global
> >>> properties of all possible band structures and (weakly
> >>> correlated) materials, consisting of a graph-theoretic
> >>> description of momentum (reciprocal) space and a complementary
> >>> group-theoretic description in real space.
>
> >>> 2. For all 230 crystal symmetry groups, we classify the possible
> >>> band structures that arise from local atomic orbitals, and show
> >>> which are topologically non-trivial. ```
>
> >> Those uses of "of" seem reasonable to me.
>
> > I'm reminded of a kid in my high school French class who said he got
> > lost in all the "que"s. That wouldn't be a problem for you either.
>
> > The last "of" in 1 should be "in", by the way.

> Because it refers to "description"? I agree that "in" would be correct,
> but I don't see an objection to using "of" there.

As far as I can tell, the theory consists of a description of all possible
band structures as they appear in momentum space and a description
of them as they appear in real space. The "in" I'd like before "momentum
space" would be parallel to the one before "real space".

--
Jerry Friedman

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:05:33 AM UTC+8, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:38:40 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> > On 3/2/2022 9:51 AM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:56:27 AM UTC-7, CDB wrote:
> > >> On 3/2/2022 1:48 AM, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> The following sentences are from here [1]:
> >
> > >>> ``` 1. This theory of topological quantum chemistry provides a
> > >>> description of the universal (across materials), global
> > >>> properties of all possible band structures and (weakly
> > >>> correlated) materials, consisting of a graph-theoretic
> > >>> description of momentum (reciprocal) space and a complementary
> > >>> group-theoretic description in real space.
> >
> > >>> 2. For all 230 crystal symmetry groups, we classify the possible
> > >>> band structures that arise from local atomic orbitals, and show
> > >>> which are topologically non-trivial. ```
> >
> > >> Those uses of "of" seem reasonable to me.
> >
> > > I'm reminded of a kid in my high school French class who said he got
> > > lost in all the "que"s. That wouldn't be a problem for you either.
> >
> > > The last "of" in 1 should be "in", by the way.
>
> > Because it refers to "description"? I agree that "in" would be correct,
> > but I don't see an objection to using "of" there.
> As far as I can tell, the theory consists of a description of all possible
> band structures as they appear in momentum space and a description
> of them as they appear in real space. The "in" I'd like before "momentum
> space" would be parallel to the one before "real space".

I'd like to say:
The "in" I'd like before "momentum space" which makes it parallel to the one before "real space".

On 3/2/2022 9:05 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> CDB wrote:
>> Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>> CDB wrote:
>>>> hongy...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>> The following sentences are from here [1]:

>>>>> ``` 1. This theory of topological quantum chemistry provides a
>>>>> description of the universal (across materials), global
>>>>> properties of all possible band structures and (weakly
>>>>> correlated) materials, consisting of a graph-theoretic
>>>>> description of momentum (reciprocal) space and a complementary
>>>>> group-theoretic description in real space.

>>>>> 2. For all 230 crystal symmetry groups, we classify the possible
>>>>> band structures that arise from local atomic orbitals, and show
>>>>> which are topologically non-trivial. ```

>>>> Those uses of "of" seem reasonable to me.

>>> I'm reminded of a kid in my high school French class who said he got
>>> lost in all the "que"s. That wouldn't be a problem for you either.

>>> The last "of" in 1 should be "in", by the way.

>> Because it refers to "description"? I agree that "in" would be correct,
>> but I don't see an objection to using "of" there.

> As far as I can tell, the theory consists of a description of all possible
> band structures as they appear in momentum space and a description
> of them as they appear in real space. The "in" I'd like before "momentum
> space" would be parallel to the one before "real space".

Ah, thanks. That is somewhat farther than I can tell.

--
One, two, many.

On 3/3/2022 1:25 AM, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> CDB wrote:
>>> Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>> CDB wrote:
>>>>> hongy...@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>>> The following sentences are from here [1]:

>>>>>> ``` 1. This theory of topological quantum chemistry
>>>>>> provides a description of the universal (across materials),
>>>>>> global properties of all possible band structures and
>>>>>> (weakly correlated) materials, consisting of a
>>>>>> graph-theoretic description of momentum (reciprocal) space
>>>>>> and a complementary group-theoretic description in real
>>>>>> space.

>>>>>> 2. For all 230 crystal symmetry groups, we classify the
>>>>>> possible band structures that arise from local atomic
>>>>>> orbitals, and show which are topologically non-trivial.
>>>>>> ```

>>>>> Those uses of "of" seem reasonable to me.

>>>> I'm reminded of a kid in my high school French class who said
>>>> he got lost in all the "que"s. That wouldn't be a problem for
>>>> you either.

>>>> The last "of" in 1 should be "in", by the way.

>>> Because it refers to "description"? I agree that "in" would be
>>> correct, but I don't see an objection to using "of" there.
>> As far as I can tell, the theory consists of a description of all
>> possible band structures as they appear in momentum space and a
>> description of them as they appear in real space. The "in" I'd like
>> before "momentum space" would be parallel to the one before "real
>> space".

> I'd like to say:

> The "in" I'd like before "momentum space" which makes it parallel to
> the one before "real space".

'The "in" I'd like goes before "momentum space"; that makes it parallel
to the one before "real space"'.

i would have preferred "would go" for "goes" and "would make" for
"makes", but your version is not wrong.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 8:18:59 PM UTC+8, CDB wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 1:25 AM, hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >> CDB wrote:
> >>> Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >>>> CDB wrote:
> >>>>> hongy...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>>>>> The following sentences are from here [1]:
>
> >>>>>> ``` 1. This theory of topological quantum chemistry
> >>>>>> provides a description of the universal (across materials),
> >>>>>> global properties of all possible band structures and
> >>>>>> (weakly correlated) materials, consisting of a
> >>>>>> graph-theoretic description of momentum (reciprocal) space
> >>>>>> and a complementary group-theoretic description in real
> >>>>>> space.
>
> >>>>>> 2. For all 230 crystal symmetry groups, we classify the
> >>>>>> possible band structures that arise from local atomic
> >>>>>> orbitals, and show which are topologically non-trivial.
> >>>>>> ```
>
> >>>>> Those uses of "of" seem reasonable to me.
>
> >>>> I'm reminded of a kid in my high school French class who said
> >>>> he got lost in all the "que"s. That wouldn't be a problem for
> >>>> you either.
>
> >>>> The last "of" in 1 should be "in", by the way.
>
> >>> Because it refers to "description"? I agree that "in" would be
> >>> correct, but I don't see an objection to using "of" there.
> >> As far as I can tell, the theory consists of a description of all
> >> possible band structures as they appear in momentum space and a
> >> description of them as they appear in real space. The "in" I'd like
> >> before "momentum space" would be parallel to the one before "real
> >> space".
>
> > I'd like to say:
>
> > The "in" I'd like before "momentum space" which makes it parallel to
> > the one before "real space".
> 'The "in" I'd like goes before "momentum space"; that makes it parallel
> to the one before "real space"'.
> i would have preferred "would go" for "goes" and "would make" for
> "makes", but your version is not wrong.

This makes me realize that English is indeed a very flexible language