Is the word "time" in time duration redundant?
I found a sentence in a physics-engineering problem that goes across the entire textbook - "... the distance traveled for a time duration of t2 - t1 is the area under the v-t curve ..."; it makes me wonder if the word "time" as in time duration is redundant in any case and context. Because as far as I know, duration is defined as time interval or time span, even in many dictionaries. What say you?
- ?Lv 71 month ago
Every field of study evolves certain uses for terms and expressions that are widely agreed on among the people in that field. These usages are often very different from that way those terms are used in other fields or in general. I'm guessing that this usage evolved in physics in order to eliminate ambiguity. It's very important, if someone plans to publish in a field of study, to read the journals and books in that field, to get a sense of what's acceptable and what's expected.
- Lord BaconLv 71 month ago
'Duration' has a more flexible meaning that just time, though it always involves time. 'Duration' can means 'for as long as something lasts'. So, suppose the 'thing' in question was fixed amount of fuel. A sentence that did not not specify or imply time might refer to the distance covered for a finite volume of fuel. How far is travelled before the fuel runs out? Specifying time adds certainty and removes possible misinterpretation. It is less 'redundancy' and more 'certainty'.
- D50Lv 61 month ago
Yes, but there are many common expressions that involve redudancies. Maybe textbook writers always do this.