0

Here the 'something' means a theory or a principle.

My sentence is

While this principle can only be appropriately understood in terms of rigorous theorems (see below for some), it is in agreement with the intuition that to fit a jump or a cusp we need fast oscillating terms.

But I am not so satisfied with the phrasing.

  • Can you rephrase the question? Or explain it better? This is really unclear. – Varun Nair Apr 18 '19 at 13:03
  • Yes. I did. The whole sentence is there now. – wdlang Apr 18 '19 at 13:45
  • I have no idea what you're asking. Only the title of the question is understandable—but it's not enough to go on. The sentence is not only confusing, but I don't understand how it relates to the title of the question. – Jason Bassford Apr 19 '19 at 5:31
  • 1
    I feel that the wording is fine and that intuition is the correct word to use there. – Hippolippo Apr 29 '19 at 21:47
1

"Intuition" is defined as the ability to understand something instinctively, without the need for conscious reasoning.

Given that you are talking about scientific theories and principles, I don't think the "intuition" you refer to is a mere 'feeling' or devoid of "conscious reasoning". I think you are trying to describe an intuition based on experience. As such, there might be a better word or phrase than "intuition".

If you really want to use "intuition", it should really belong to someone, or a group of people. Intuition is something that people possess, not something that is documented, so you should state whose intuition it is, rather than say "the" intuition:

it is in agreement with our intuition that to fit a jump or a cusp we need fast oscillating terms.

Alternatively, if you agree that "intuition" might not be the most appropriate word, perhaps you could instead use "theory" or, even better "working theory". A working theory is based on known facts, not just guesswork or intuition. As a theory is normally documented, you can say "our theory" or "the theory" if you prefer, or if the theory is not yours.

| improve this answer | |
0

While this principle can only be appropriately understood in terms of rigorous theorems (see below for some), it is intuitive that to fit a jump or a cusp we need fast oscillating terms.

Or something like "it is intuitively obvious", depending on the circumstances.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.