Discussion:
The staggered potential from the twisting here is like the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model that they both can break the TRs.
Add Reply
hongy...@gmail.com
2021-04-27 09:44:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The following comments/reviews are excerpted from <https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/95671849>:

<quote>
In August, 2019, Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer MnBi2Te4, the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands with Chern number up to 3. The staggered potential from the twisting here is like the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model that they both can break the TRs.
</quote>

I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last clause used above, i.e., "that they both can break the TRs". Any hints will be highly appreciated.

Regards,
HY
Chrysi Cat
2021-04-27 10:45:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
<quote>
In August, 2019, Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer MnBi2Te4, the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands with Chern number up to 3. The staggered potential from the twisting here is like the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model that they both can break the TRs.
</quote>
I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last clause used above, i.e., "that they both can break the TRs". Any hints will be highly appreciated.
Regards,
HY
Your posts from this particular physics class are very complicated
SCIENCE English.

They aren't just incomprehensible to YOU; they're incomprehensible to
anyone who doesn't have a heavy background in this stuff, because "TRs"
is jargon.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Peter Moylan
2021-04-27 11:19:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by ***@gmail.com
The following comments/reviews are excerpted from
<quote>
In August, 2019, Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer
MnBi2Te4, the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands with Chern
number up to 3. The staggered potential from the twisting here is like
the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model that they both
can break the TRs.
</quote>
I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last clause used
above, i.e., "that they both can break the TRs". Any hints will be
highly appreciated.
Regards,
HY
Your posts from this particular physics class are very complicated
SCIENCE English.
They aren't just incomprehensible to YOU; they're incomprehensible to
anyone who doesn't have a heavy background in this stuff, because "TRs"
is jargon.
Even then, the sentence will make no sense until "that" is changed to
"in that".
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Jerry Friedman
2021-04-27 13:51:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by ***@gmail.com
The following comments/reviews are excerpted from
<quote>
In August, 2019, Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer
MnBi2Te4, the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands with Chern
number up to 3. The staggered potential from the twisting here is like
the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model that they both
can break the TRs.
</quote>
I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last clause used
above, i.e., "that they both can break the TRs". Any hints will be
highly appreciated.
Regards,
HY
Your posts from this particular physics class are very complicated
SCIENCE English.
They aren't just incomprehensible to YOU; they're incomprehensible to
anyone who doesn't have a heavy background in this stuff, because "TRs"
is jargon.
Even then, the sentence will make no sense until "that" is changed to
"in that".
The whole article is in bad English (though it's infinitely better than my
Chinese). Jan might enjoy "Brillouin zoon". (Should be "zone".)

"TRs" turns out to be, not the plural of "TR", but "Time Reversal symmetry".
--
Jerry Friedman
s***@my-deja.com
2021-04-28 00:04:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Moylan
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by ***@gmail.com
The following comments/reviews are excerpted from
<quote>
In August, 2019, Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer
MnBi2Te4, the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands with Chern
number up to 3. The staggered potential from the twisting here is like
the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model that they both
can break the TRs.
</quote>
I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last clause used
above, i.e., "that they both can break the TRs". Any hints will be
highly appreciated.
Your posts from this particular physics class are very complicated
SCIENCE English.
They aren't just incomprehensible to YOU; they're incomprehensible to
anyone who doesn't have a heavy background in this stuff, because "TRs"
is jargon.
Even then, the sentence will make no sense until "that" is changed to
"in that".
YES and YES
hongy...@gmail.com
2021-04-28 01:51:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by ***@gmail.com
<quote>
In August, 2019, Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer MnBi2Te4, the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands with Chern number up to 3. The staggered potential from the twisting here is like the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model that they both can break the TRs.
</quote>
I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last clause used above, i.e., "that they both can break the TRs". Any hints will be highly appreciated.
Regards,
HY
Your posts from this particular physics class are very complicated
SCIENCE English.
They aren't just incomprehensible to YOU; they're incomprehensible to
anyone who doesn't have a heavy background in this stuff, because "TRs"
is jargon.
TR means time reversal symmetry, see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-symmetry> for more detailed info.

HY
J. J. Lodder
2021-04-28 09:18:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
[Quite OT, and a shameless switch of subject]
Are you aware of the existence of Minoes?
She may well be described as an antrocat.

Originally a Dutch book for children up to 80+ by Annie M. G. Schmidt.
An English translation exists. (and in many other languages too)
<https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5037531-minoes>
(also published as 'The Cat who came off the Roof)
There is also a movie adaptation.

Jan
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-27 15:10:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
<quote>
In August, 2019, Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer MnBi2Te4, the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands with Chern number up to 3. The staggered potential from the twisting here is like the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model that they both can break the TRs.
</quote>
I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last clause used above, i.e., "that they both can break the TRs". Any hints will be highly appreciated.
"That" is not a pronoun, but a conjunction. "In" is missing before "that."

The clause has no antecedent. The antecedents of "they both" are a
pair of things recently mentioned -- staggered potential and staggered
magnetic field. I have, of course, no idea what it's talking about, but the
grammar is perfectly clear.
hongy...@gmail.com
2021-04-28 02:09:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by ***@gmail.com
<quote>
In August, 2019, Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer MnBi2Te4, the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands with Chern number up to 3. The staggered potential from the twisting here is like the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model that they both can break the TRs.
</quote>
I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last clause used above, i.e., "that they both can break the TRs". Any hints will be highly appreciated.
"That" is not a pronoun, but a conjunction. "In" is missing before "that."
The clause has no antecedent. The antecedents of "they both" are a
pair of things recently mentioned -- staggered potential and staggered
magnetic field.
Let me rephrase and touch up it into the following:

... (in) that they both can break the TRS (time reversal symmetry).

But I still can't figure out why "they both" in the above structure needs antecedents. I mean, it seems that everything needed for the above sentence is already there, and is sufficient, complete, and self-explanatory.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have, of course, no idea what it's talking about, but the
grammar is perfectly clear.
CDB
2021-04-28 12:09:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by ***@gmail.com
The following comments/reviews are excerpted from
<https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/95671849>: <quote> In August, 2019,
Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer MnBi2Te4,
the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands with Chern number
up to 3. The staggered potential from the twisting here is like
the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model that they
both can break the TRs. </quote>
I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last clause
used above, i.e., "that they both can break the TRs". Any hints
will be highly appreciated.
"That" is not a pronoun, but a conjunction. "In" is missing before "that."
The clause has no antecedent. The antecedents of "they both" are a
pair of things recently mentioned -- staggered potential and
staggered magnetic field.
... (in) that they both can break the TRS (time reversal symmetry).
But I still can't figure out why "they both" in the above structure
needs antecedents. I mean, it seems that everything needed for the
above sentence is already there, and is sufficient, complete, and
self-explanatory.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have, of course, no idea what it's talking about, but the grammar
is perfectly clear.
"In that" is a kind of phrasal conjunction that introduces an
explanation of of "the staggered potential from the twisting here is
like the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model". The former
is like the latter *because* both of them can break the TRs.

From the Onelook Oxford dictionary:

"For the reason that (used to specify the respect in which a statement
is true)

‘I was fortunate in that I had friends’"

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/in_that
hongy...@gmail.com
2021-04-28 13:24:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by ***@gmail.com
The following comments/reviews are excerpted from
<https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/95671849>: <quote> In August, 2019,
Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer MnBi2Te4,
the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands with Chern number
up to 3. The staggered potential from the twisting here is like
the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model that they
both can break the TRs. </quote>
I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last clause
used above, i.e., "that they both can break the TRs". Any hints
will be highly appreciated.
"That" is not a pronoun, but a conjunction. "In" is missing before "that."
The clause has no antecedent. The antecedents of "they both" are a
pair of things recently mentioned -- staggered potential and
staggered magnetic field.
... (in) that they both can break the TRS (time reversal symmetry).
But I still can't figure out why "they both" in the above structure
needs antecedents. I mean, it seems that everything needed for the
above sentence is already there, and is sufficient, complete, and
self-explanatory.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have, of course, no idea what it's talking about, but the grammar
is perfectly clear.
"In that" is a kind of phrasal conjunction that introduces an
explanation of of "the staggered potential from the twisting here is
like the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model". The former
is like the latter *because* both of them can break the TRs.
If so, why not just replace *(in) that* with *because* just as you supplied above.
Post by CDB
"For the reason that (used to specify the respect in which a statement
is true)
‘I was fortunate in that I had friends’"
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/in_that
Chrysi Cat
2021-04-28 13:52:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by CDB
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by ***@gmail.com
The following comments/reviews are excerpted from
<https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/95671849>: <quote> In August, 2019,
Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer MnBi2Te4,
the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands with Chern number
up to 3. The staggered potential from the twisting here is like
the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model that they
both can break the TRs. </quote>
I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last clause
used above, i.e., "that they both can break the TRs". Any hints
will be highly appreciated.
"That" is not a pronoun, but a conjunction. "In" is missing before "that."
The clause has no antecedent. The antecedents of "they both" are a
pair of things recently mentioned -- staggered potential and
staggered magnetic field.
... (in) that they both can break the TRS (time reversal symmetry).
But I still can't figure out why "they both" in the above structure
needs antecedents. I mean, it seems that everything needed for the
above sentence is already there, and is sufficient, complete, and
self-explanatory.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have, of course, no idea what it's talking about, but the grammar
is perfectly clear.
"In that" is a kind of phrasal conjunction that introduces an
explanation of of "the staggered potential from the twisting here is
like the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model". The former
is like the latter *because* both of them can break the TRs.
If so, why not just replace *(in) that* with *because* just as you supplied above.
Ai-yai-yai...

Because that's an oversimplification, and "because" and "in that" (or
for that matter), *inasmuch as", and FROM BOTH of those) carry subtle
differences in meaning.

Unfortunately, said differences are more a matter of running across
sentences where each of at least the first two and with luck third as
well have occurred "in the wild", so it's a matter of nuance that even
native speakers pick the wrong option on, often, until deep into high
school or even university.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by CDB
"For the reason that (used to specify the respect in which a statement
is true)
‘I was fortunate in that I had friends’"
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/in_that
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Chrysi Cat
2021-04-28 13:59:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by CDB
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by ***@gmail.com
The following comments/reviews are excerpted from
<https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/95671849>: <quote> In August, 2019,
Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer MnBi2Te4,
the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands with Chern number
up to 3. The staggered potential from the twisting here is like
the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model that they
both can break the TRs. </quote>
I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last clause
used above, i.e., "that they both can break the TRs". Any hints
will be highly appreciated.
"That" is not a pronoun, but a conjunction. "In" is missing before "that."
The clause has no antecedent. The antecedents of "they both" are a
pair of things recently mentioned -- staggered potential and
staggered magnetic field.
... (in) that they both can break the TRS (time reversal symmetry).
But I still can't figure out why "they both" in the above structure
needs antecedents. I mean, it seems that everything needed for the
above sentence is already there, and is sufficient, complete, and
self-explanatory.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have, of course, no idea what it's talking about, but the grammar
is perfectly clear.
"In that" is a kind of phrasal conjunction that introduces an
explanation of of "the staggered potential from the twisting here is
like the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model". The former
is like the latter *because* both of them can break the TRs.
If so, why not just replace *(in) that* with *because* just as you supplied above.
Ai-yai-yai...
Because that's an oversimplification, and "because" and "in that" (or
for that matter), *inasmuch as", and FROM BOTH of those) carry subtle
differences in meaning.
AND OF COURSE there's a spurious punctuation mark in the explanation.
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by ***@gmail.com
Because that's an oversimplification, and "because" and "in that" (or
for that matter, *inasmuch as", and FROM BOTH of those) carry subtle
differences in meaning.
Unfortunately, said differences are more a matter of running across
sentences where each of at least the first two and with luck third as
well have occurred "in the wild", so it's a matter of nuance that even
native speakers pick the wrong option on, often, until deep into high
school or even university.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by CDB
"For the reason that (used to specify the respect in which a statement
is true)
‘I was fortunate in that I had friends’"
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/in_that
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger. [she/her. Misgender and die].
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Peter T. Daniels
2021-04-28 14:55:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Ai-yai-yai...
I wonder how that was spelled in *I Love Lucy* scripts. (There was
no ad-libbing in sitcoms in those days.)
Peter Moylan
2021-04-29 00:49:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Chrysi Cat
Ai-yai-yai...
I wonder how that was spelled in *I Love Lucy* scripts. (There was
no ad-libbing in sitcoms in those days.)
In a certain popular song, the spelling is usually given as

Ay, ay, ay, ay,
Canta y no llores.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
CDB
2021-04-28 19:24:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by CDB
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by ***@gmail.com
The following comments/reviews are excerpted from
<https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/95671849>: <quote> In August,
2019, Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer
MnBi2Te4, the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands
with Chern number up to 3. The staggered potential from the
twisting here is like the role of staggered magnetic field
in Haldane model that they both can break the TRs. </quote>
I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last
clause used above, i.e., "that they both can break the TRs".
Any hints will be highly appreciated.
"That" is not a pronoun, but a conjunction. "In" is missing
before "that."
The clause has no antecedent. The antecedents of "they both"
are a pair of things recently mentioned -- staggered potential
and staggered magnetic field.
... (in) that they both can break the TRS (time reversal
symmetry).
But I still can't figure out why "they both" in the above
structure needs antecedents. I mean, it seems that everything
needed for the above sentence is already there, and is
sufficient, complete, and self-explanatory.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have, of course, no idea what it's talking about, but the
grammar is perfectly clear.
"In that" is a kind of phrasal conjunction that introduces an
explanation of of "the staggered potential from the twisting here
is like the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model".
The former is like the latter *because* both of them can break the
TRs.
If so, why not just replace *(in) that* with *because* just as you supplied above.
You could, but you would lose a bit of the meaning. "In that" is more
like "I (can) say that because". No great harm would follow.
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by CDB
"For the reason that (used to specify the respect in which a
statement is true)
‘I was fortunate in that I had friends’"
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/in_that
Peter Moylan
2021-04-29 00:58:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by CDB
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by CDB
Post by ***@gmail.com
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by ***@gmail.com
The following comments/reviews are excerpted from
<https://zhuanlan.zhihu.com/p/95671849>: <quote> In August,
2019, Yuanbo Zhang's group proposed that in twisted bilayer
MnBi2Te4, the system exhibits highly tunable Chern bands
with Chern number up to 3. The staggered potential from the
twisting here is like the role of staggered magnetic
field in Haldane model that they both can break the TRs.
</quote>
I don't know how to determine the antecedent of the last
clause used above, i.e., "that they both can break the
TRs". Any hints will be highly appreciated.
"That" is not a pronoun, but a conjunction. "In" is missing before "that."
The clause has no antecedent. The antecedents of "they both"
are a pair of things recently mentioned -- staggered
potential and staggered magnetic field.
... (in) that they both can break the TRS (time reversal
symmetry).
But I still can't figure out why "they both" in the above
structure needs antecedents. I mean, it seems that everything
needed for the above sentence is already there, and is
sufficient, complete, and self-explanatory.
Post by Peter T. Daniels
I have, of course, no idea what it's talking about, but the
grammar is perfectly clear.
"In that" is a kind of phrasal conjunction that introduces an
explanation of of "the staggered potential from the twisting here
is like the role of staggered magnetic field in Haldane model".
The former is like the latter *because* both of them can break
the TRs.
If so, why not just replace *(in) that* with *because* just as you supplied above.
You could, but you would lose a bit of the meaning. "In that" is
more like "I (can) say that because". No great harm would follow.
When it's a comparison, you can also think of "in that" as meaning "in
the property that".

"Cats are similar to elephants in that they have four legs."

That just says that having four legs is a way in which they are similar.
It doesn't claim that cats are similar to elephants in any other way.

In the original sentence, the property that the two things have in
common is breaking the TRS. It doesn't say that they have anything else
in common.
--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org
Loading...