3

I am trying to figure out an idea of mine as follows,

Being the strategy of corresponding candidate matching is to intersect viewing ray planes belonging to the two images at a time, specific constraints are needed for the rejection of fault matching and also for the reaching of optimal construction (i.e. 3D lines).

My question is, I want to say that I need constraints for two things

  • the rejection of fault matching, and
  • the reaching of optimal construction (i.e. 3D lines).

If these two things are written as shown in my sentence, then

  1. should I need to use for for explaning both requrements?
  2. Also, should the second phrase be follow the same structure as first phrase? (that mean: for something of something)
  • I now wonder what if we could say something like : for the rejection of both fault matching and optimal construction? I am not sure, though. – Hakan Apr 13 '14 at 11:54
  • 1
    @Hakan I agree. Both ... and alerts the reader from the outset that two terms will be introduced, while and also comes in as an afterthought. – StoneyB on hiatus Apr 13 '14 at 12:04
2

In reverse order:

(2) Yes, the two phrases should follow the same structure. This is not required, but it helps the reader navigate a complex sentence.

(1) Yes, you should employ the preposition in both places. Since you have parallel constructions the second may be omitted; but retaining it, again, helps the reader follow your structure.

Some additional considerations:

(a) Being won't work at the beginning. Being as is acceptable colloquially, but not formally. Use since or because: Because the strategy is ...

(b) The entire VP to intersect ... at a time is very unclear. I suspect what you mean is to intersect the viewing ray planes which at any given time belong to the two images.

(c) rejection and reaching are not strictly parallel: one is a derived noun and the other a gerund. Neither is satisfactory. You may write this more economically with infinitives (which permit you to drop the for altogether): ...are needed both to reject fault matching and to reach optimal construction.

(d) reject fault matching sounds odd, but that may be my ignorance of the subject.

(e) reach optimal construction should probably be achieve optimal construction.

  • many thanks for the clear explanation. And also for very constructive suggestions to improve my way of writing. thanks many times again.. – niro Apr 13 '14 at 12:01
  • PS: ... intersect viewing ray planes belonging to two images at a time... In here, at a time mean, I take two planes and intersect, after intersecting these two, take another two planes and do the same, and again and again do the same until I get a correct outcome. The main thing is I use only TWO planes for each processing. With this idea, I hope I could use "at a time" and would be understandable for others? is that please? – niro Apr 13 '14 at 12:07
  • @niro Ah! The problem is that at a time here is so distant from the two it modifies that the sense is lost. How about this? -"Since the strategy is to intersect successive pairs of viewing planes, one from each image, ..." – StoneyB on hiatus Apr 13 '14 at 12:12

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.