Lietuviškos matematinės terminologijos istorijai

the result of the action. Quotient, a word of Latin origin, which tells the German nothing about the operation by which the number was obtained; in Polish the dalmu is called iloraz, but that name could also be used for a multiplier, which also means how many times (ile razy) a given number must be multiplied (or subtracted). The multiplier and divisor in these languages are called as in earlier Lithuanian publications: daugintojas, dalytojas (this does not mean a certain number, but a person who performs the multiplication or division operations). We were determined to avoid such illogicalness, to call the numbers involved in the actions as short as possible noun forms (e.g., dot, dot not adding, adding); to treat the numbers by which multiplication or division is performed as a kind of tools and to form their names according to the forms of living language (e.g., additive, hanger), namely: multiplier, divisor and analogously in fractions — numerator, denominator. The result of the multiplication is called the product. A lot of trouble for us was the question of the use of prepositions, describing the actions of multiplication and division. Previously, it was said: multiply, divide by 5 or — multiply, divide by five. It was clear that the first construction was not suitable for Lithuanian language at all. The second construction is correct and could be used when the multiplier or divisor are specific positive integers, but in more general cases and in operations with alphabetical numbers it is inconvenient, because it would have to be added every time ‘..number’, ir etc. J. Jablonskis recalled the sayings of living language to divide, measure from the eye: she can cook lunch from the book, allegedly “as the eye shows”, “as the books show”. Thus, the optional construction is to multiply by the multiplier, i.e. "as the multiplier shows". We were all very pleased with this proposal. Jablonski's proposal to use the prefix from and in the case of division did not generate enthusiasm among mathematicians. It was pointed out that the use of the preposition from in the case of three different actions will be inconvenient not only from the point of view of language style, but it will also make mathematical language difficult to understand, it will be necessary to often use the division of the number, etc. Attention was drawn to the fact that the participation involves two quite different cases in terms of interpretation and performance of the action: (a) division in equal parts; and (b) division by capacity (capacity division). The first (a) in case it is natural to use prepositions į (e.g. divide into 5 parts) and in the second (b) the prefix po (e.g. divide 35 kg, divide 5 kg). In the case of specific, particularly nominal, metric numbers, according to the essence of the action, one or another prefix should be used, and in the case of general, alphabetical numbers, the prefix po is better suited. That is why I have proposed to use the prefix 'after', not 'from', in the case of such joint action. The authority of J. Jablonski weighed down, but it still seems to me that it would have been better to leave the prefix po. New Lithuanian algebra terms (positive, negative numbers, etc.), as far as I remember, were proposed by M. Šikšnis and quickly accepted by all of us. There was a lot of ir thought and even a dispute about the equation. To the term was not in earlier Lithuanian writings. The example of other languages were the terms equality, comparison; were raised terms lygmė, lygmuo. It seemed that the most appropriate term would be equation. J. Jablonski was rather strongly opposed to the singular form of the ir proposed equations. He explained that the necessary interaction of the two parts, equality, su balance, is involved here. In such cases, plural nouns are used in living language, such ir as: sleds, scissors, mouths. I had to convince J. Jablonski that it is important for mathematicians to have this concept expressed in singular, so that it would be 197 clear that we are dealing not with several, but with one equation. Jablonski submitted, and the term equation was adopted. Other arithmetic and algebraic terms (e.g. fractions, their common denominators, proportions, logarithms, etc.) did not cause major difficulties and did not raise controversy. M. Šikšnys undertook to prepare the results of these works for the press. The author of these memoirs had to work a lot in the field of geometry and trigonometry terminology. One of the first questions was the name of the lines. It was clear that leaving the terms straight, curved and perpendicular would create a lot of inconvenience in terms of language and ambiguity in mathematical terms. There was a need to call these objects not in adjective form, but in shorter nouns. Mine was proposed curve, straight, perpendicular. Everyone agreed, although these were words not taken from the living language. There was a dispute over the name. The adjective form of the name of that truth could cause a lot of uncertainty and even ambiguity: whether it is the truth that touches what, or which something touches. In fact, the curve I proposed to call the tangent liesné, as it is said in the living language: rėksnė, dėsnė (chicken). Deepening into the essence of that truth (it, but not it that touches), J. Jablonskis decided that it would be most appropriate to call it lietéja, thuomi emphasizing a certain activity. The analogy is called a cross-section. The words ratas and stipinas were used to name the circle and its radius until then, A. Jakštas-- Dambrauskas used the term ratilas. The terms circle and radius, apparently proposed by Jablonski, were soon adopted, but radius was also allowed. The term "circle" was also adopted on the proposal of J. Jablonski. As far as I remember, the term plane did not cause controversy. It didn't seem quite right to me at the beginning. The plane should mean the flat part of any surface (e.g., in a mountainous area, a certain defined level, in a flat roof, the flat part — the ledge, etc.). To call an infinite plane surface a plane is as inaccurate as to call a straight line a straight line, a curve a curvature. It seemed to me that a term was needed that would not mean the characteristics, the nature of the surface, but the infinite surface itself; such a ZodZiu-term could be (termus technicus) ploksmé, a plate. And in the living language there are plenty of words of such construction, meaning certain generalized concepts, e.g.: flow, depth, origin, and so on. Some of the mathematicians still use the term plane, easily forming the adjective plane (instead of plane), and this does not cause any confusion. Trigonometric terms were not a major problem. International terms were used as the basis, and there were only differences of opinion about their Lithuanian endings and spelling. It was proposed to consider the words sinus, cosinus as nouns in Lithuanian and to conjugate them accordingly: sinus, sinaus, sinui, etc. It seems that J. Jablonski decided that their nouns should be translated into Lithuanian, i.e. sinusas, cosinusas. Then it was stated that tangens, cotangens, sekans should be called: tangensas, contangensas, Not tangent, cotangentas..., as J. Jablonskis demanded, based on the law that the Lithuanian endings of the noun should be attached to the root of the adjective of the foreign word. The examples of living language did not help, + Zr. M. Šikšnys, Dictionary of Arithmetic and Algebra Terms, Kaunas, 1919, 47 p. 198 N