In mathematics: is "associate to" correct?

Question

In mathematical writing, I was used to

We associate to the object C a vector space V(C)

Now I found a question, Acceptable uses for "associated with" or "associated to", which says that associate with is better.

I ran an ngram and confirmed that associated with is astronomically dominating. Is, nevertheless, in mathematics associate to correct?

Can you edit your question to include a complete sentence please? It's worth bearing in mind that within a specific domain, such as mathematics, the conventions of that domain override the general rules of grammar/semantics. — Max Williams, Jul 05 '16 at 08:05
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it belongs on another site in the Stack Exchange network. — Edwin Ashworth, Jul 05 '16 at 08:08
Wikipedia uses the expression: 'The mapping that associates the result of this substitution to the substituted value is a function, called a polynomial function.' This no doubt models after 'maps to'. — Edwin Ashworth, Jul 05 '16 at 08:13
And there is a balanced if inconclusive overview of the usage at http://tea.mathoverflow.net: is it associated to or associated with?. — Edwin Ashworth, Jul 05 '16 at 08:22
The two uses are slightly different. If you are just introducing V(C) for the first time, "associate to" conveys the idea that we are creating this now and defining the relationship now. "Associated with" implies the objects and relationships were set forth earlier. — Phil Sweet, Jul 05 '16 at 19:06

score 0 · Accepted Answer · answered Jul 05 '16 at 08:05

0

It appears it is, you can find a few usage examples below:

From An Introduction to Abstract Mathematics by Robert J. Bond,William J. Keane:

Then p,-(x) I a,-q,-(x), where (1,-(x) is a monic irreducible polynomial in F [x] associate to p,-(x).

From Financial Modeling and Investment Management By Sergio M. Focardi, ‎Frank J. Fabozzi, CFA - 2004 - ‎Business & Economics:

It is assumed that it is possible to associate to each trading moment t a a-algebra of events 3f c 3 formed by all events ...

answered Jul 05 '16 at 08:05

Though 'a a-algebra' doesn't fill one with confidence. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 05 '16 at 08:09
@EdwinAshworth - I think you know it is correct usage, though. – Jul 05 '16 at 08:11
I think you know that this is well away from standard registers, so far that it belongs on Maths SE, and that (1) It should be asked there; (2) An authoritative definition rather than an example or two from texts (think of school grammars) is required for a decent answer. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 05 '16 at 08:19
2

@EdwinAshworth - the question is about a preposition (language) used in math. It you think or prove that my answer is incorrect please provide the necessary evidence. If you have a better answer please post it. – Jul 05 '16 at 08:23
I don't post on Maths SE (where the question belongs). Registers far from the norm (eg law, lyrics) have long been considered off-topic here except where the usages involved are quite common. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 05 '16 at 08:23
2

@EdwinAshworth The question doesn't belong to Math SE, I'm not asking about the mathematical correctness, if you read carefully, but about English. – c.p. Jul 05 '16 at 08:24
@c.p. No; you look at these posts on Maths SE. Specialist registers are best dealt with in their associated sites, being of little help to general students of English. Your question conflates general standard usage with specialist usage. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 05 '16 at 08:30
... How many linguists is 'My coauthors and [I] once had an editor try to stop us from using "associated to" in one of our papers. I regarded it then, and still regard it, as prescriptive silliness. No one has yet been able to give me a good replacement that actually means the same thing; "associated with" obviously doesn't, since that implies a symmetric relationship, rather than an asymmetric one; "assigned to" doesn't either, since that carries a meaning of human agency, where as [sic] "associated to" is neutral in that regard.... – Edwin Ashworth Jul 05 '16 at 08:33
Until the day I find an appropriate replacement (and, let's face it, probably afterward), I'm going to continue to use "associated to," even if it annoys Will.' {Ben Webster Nov 25th 2012} going to help? There is disagreement over acceptability even in the institutions involved. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 05 '16 at 08:34
On second thoughts, perhaps it will encourage linguists not to despair about the inadequacies of mainstream English, when even people who insist on well-defining terms, don't. – Edwin Ashworth Jul 05 '16 at 08:52

In mathematics: is "associate to" correct?

1 Answers1