The better image of xxx

[Untaught88]

Hi,

Is ''The better image of xxx is within the better image of yyy'' correct? I mean to say one thing is possible because of the other.

 

[Barb_D]

I don't understand your meaning. Can you say it differently?

 

[teechar]

Is this a direct translation of an idiom in Urdu?

 

[Untaught88]

The better image of xxx is possible from the better image of yyy.

 

[MikeNewYork]

It still makes little sense.

 

[Untaught88]

The better image of xxx means the better image of yyy.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think the OP means 'A better image of XXX makes for a better image of YYY', but I am not a teacher.

 

[Untaught88]

You are right. Can ''mean'' and ''make'' be used? What does ''make for'' mean?

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think you can refer to definition#2 below, but I am not a teacher.
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/make-for?q=make+for

 

[lotus888]

Logically (from the original sentence), it should be "An improved image of y yields a better image of x", since x is within y.


--lotus

 

[en_buff]

I think Matthew Wai is onto something here. "The better the x image the better the y image." This is roughly the meaning that I gather from that sentence.

 

[Matthew Wai]

"An improved image of y yields a better image of x"

Is it correct to use 'yields' as the OP said it is 'possible' rather than 'certain' in post#4?

 

[lotus888]

It's cause and effect. Since x is within y, changing x might not change all of y. But changing y would change all of x. Therefore, a change in y would yield a change in x. It's not only because it's possible, it's also because it's a logical consequence.


--lotus

 

[Rover_KE]

I haven't a clue what's going on here.

Can we have an actual example of what anybody's talking about without peppering the text with xs and ys like an algebra problem?

 

[Matthew Wai]

Since x is within y, changing x might not change all of y. But changing y would change all of x. Therefore, a change in y would yield a change in x.

Hong Kong (x), where I live, is within China , but a change in China does not necessarily yield a change in Hong Kong. Could this apply to the OP's sentence?

 

[Raymott]

I agree that it's time to introduce a concrete example.

 

[lotus888]

No, not in general. A change in China's policies would affect Hong Kong, a province of China. China is the superset. Hong Kong is the subset.
A change in Hong Kong policy may not affect China's policy.

It's like federal policy vs state policy in the United States. Federal law affects all the states. State laws do not affect all of the United States.

Image y is the superset. Image x is the subset. A change in image y must affect a change in image x. A change in image x may not affect all of image y.

Think of the ever-dreaded image processing in Photoshop. A group photo has you in it. A change in the entire photo (such as color) must affect your image. A change of just of your image (say a softer face) may not affect others in the entire photo.


--lotus

 

[Matthew Wai]

No, not in general. A change in China's policies would affect Hong Kong, a province of China. China is the superset. Hong Kong is the subset.

Hong Kong, a special administrative region instead of a province of China, enjoys high autonomy, so a change in China's policies does not necessarily affect Hong Kong.

Vatican is within Rome. Do you think a change in Rome must yield a change in Vatican?

 

[lotus888]

Perhaps Hong Kong is not a good example because it's a special case, just as the Vatican is a special case.

In the US, there are no exceptions. State policy cannot trump federal policy. Appellate Court rulings cannot override Supreme Court rulings.



--lotus

 

[Barb_D]

I'm stuck on this use of "image."

Are you looking for a figure of speech or idiom to mean "Making one thing better makes all the parts that make it up better too"?

A rising tide lifts all boats.