Anisotropy vs Anisoptropic

[hanky]

Let's say we have a system X characterized by two paramters a and b (for example, two different dimensions along different axes).
if a equals b one says X is isotropic whereas if a differs from b one says X is anisotropic (i.e., not isotropic).


My questions:
1/ If a is much smaller than b, X is (strongly/very/largely/bigly) anisotropic. What adverb can I use in the above sentence?

2/ In order to refer to the region where a << b (much smaller), should I use
large anisotropy region or largely anisotropic region? ( noun as an adjective vs adjective)

Thank you.

 

[rlfwood]

My inclination would be to use "highly" in both situations.

In #1, "strongly" or "very" would work. To me, "largely" implies that part of the area is anisotropic and part isn't.
I have never heard or seen the word "bigly", although it apparently exists.

In #2, "large anisotropy region" describes the size of the region, not the extent of the difference in a and b. My reaction to "largely" in this context is the same as in #1.

 

[hanky]

My inclination would be to use "highly" in both situations.

In #1, "strongly" or "very" would work. To me, "largely" implies that part of the area is anisotropic and part isn't.
I have never heard or seen the word "bigly", although it apparently exists.

In #2, "large anisotropy region" describes the size of the region, not the extent of the difference in a and b. My reaction to "largely" in this context is the same as in #1.

Thanks. What would you say for the region which is almost isotropic? weakly/lowly /smally anisotropic region?

 

[rlfwood]

Thanks. What would you say for the region which is almost isotropic? weakly/lowly /smally anisotropic region?

Perhaps "nearly"? This is a nearly anisotropic region.

 

[hanky]

Perhaps "nearly"? This is a nearly anisotropic region.

It could be great if you have a couple of adverbs like strongly/weakly to be used with 'anisotropic' since the two cases are apparently opposite.

 

[mmasny]

Are these words (isotropic, &c.) strictly defined scientific terms wherein you want to use them? If this is the case I would certainly use just as small a number of adjectives as I could and define their meanings as well. Such texts are often very hard to understand and putting many synonymic words into them can make them unreadable. Their function is not the author's linguistic show-off.

 

[hanky]

Are these words (isotropic, &c.) strictly defined scientific terms wherein you want to use them? If this is the case I would certainly use just as small a number of adjectives as I could and define their meanings as well. Such texts are often very hard to understand and putting many synonymic words into them can make them unreadable. Their function is not the author's linguistic show-off.

What are these small number of adjectives that you use? I am not going to use as much adverbs as I can. I just wanted to find which adverb would naturally go with the word anisotropic in the two cases (mentioned above).

 

[mmasny]

Ok, all I wanted was to make distinction between natural and scientific languages. In the world of science we can't choose words by our preference and by what sounds good. We have some defined terms and must stick to them. And if we use some brand new one we need to define it so that everything is clear. I am aware of the fact that I don't answer your question. It's just kind of by-the-way that I thought might be helpful and might not be.

 

[rlfwood]

I just wanted to find which adverb would naturally go with the word anisotropic in the two cases (mentioned above).

You're not really describing a "strongly/weakly" situation. What you're describing is "strongly" and "almost". Those really aren't polar opposites.

I support your desire for consistency. As long as you define what you mean (i.e., the exact numerical values or ranges that you're reporting for "a" and "b"), then I don't know that your choice of adverb is all that critical.

 

[hanky]

You're not really describing a "strongly/weakly" situation. What you're describing is "strongly" and "almost". Those really aren't polar opposites.

I support your desire for consistency. As long as you define what you mean (i.e., the exact numerical values or ranges that you're reporting for "a" and "b"), then I don't know that your choice of adverb is all that critical.

Doesn't almost isotropic mean weakly anisotropic? ( a approximates to b)

 

[rlfwood]

Doesn't almost isotropic mean weakly anisotropic? ( a approximates to b)

To me, one implies that the difference is slightly positive, and the other implies that the difference is slightly negative. I wouldn't see those two situations as comparable, but perhaps it depends on the nature of the phenomenon under discussion.