the quantum requirement that one include all the histories

[GoodTaste]

The problem, as we'll see below, is that when you add to the above framework of particle exchange the quantum requirement that one include all the histories by which an interaction can occur-for example,allcompli the ways the force particles can be exchanged-the mathematics becomes complicated.

Source: The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking (p166)


It seems to me that the part "that one include all" should have been either "that should include all" or "that includes all". I am not absolutely sure. The grammar does not seem to be okay there.
Is the grammar of the part acceptable?

PS: QED stands for quantum electrodynamics.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, the grammar is correct.

the quantum requirement that one include all the histories by which an interaction can occur

This is a long noun phrase. The red part is the complement of the blue part.

It's equivalent to saying 'including all the histories by which an interaction can occur is required'.

 

[GoodTaste]

Why not "one includes"? Using "one include" seems to treat "one" as plural, which is why I don't understand it.

 

[Piscean]

It's a subjunctive form, correct after the quantum requirement that ... .

 

[teechar]

when you add to the above framework of particle exchange the quantum requirement (which stipulates) that one (should/ought to/must ... etc) include all the histories

The text in bold is mine. Does it help?

 

[tedmc]

It's a subjunctive form, (which/and is) correct after the quantum requirement that ... .

Are there words missing after the comma?

 

[GoodTaste]

The text in bold is mine. Does it help?

Helped. What does "one" refer to? Does it refer to the person who is pondering over quantum mechanics?

 

[Tarheel]

@GoodTaste one - a person

It helps.

 

[GoodTaste]

It helps.

(It has) helped.

 

[Tarheel]

@GoodTaste That's a basic mistake.

 

[GoodTaste]

The reason? Why doesn't Present Perfect tense work there?

 

[Tarheel]

@GoodTaste That might be the problem. You think in terms of grammar. I think in terms of what the sentence means.

Do you really think you should be correcting me?

 

[GoodTaste]

@GoodTaste That might be the problem. You think I'm terms of grammar. I think I'm terms of what the sentence means.

Do you really think you should be correcting me?

What was in my mind is: if the form "It helps" worked, why doesn't the form "It has helped" work, too?

So I was not trying to correct you. You've offered a popular form "it helps". But I wanted to expand the vision: Could "(It has) helped" work? Why or why not?

 

[tedmc]

What was in my mind is: if the form "It helps" worked, why doesn't the form "It has helped" work, too?

So I was not trying to correct you. You've offered a popular form "it helps". But I wanted to expand the vision: Could "(It has) helped" work? Why or why not?

"It helps" - that's why native speakers would say, as a plain fact. The present perfect form is unnatural.

I think "expand the vision" is also unnatural. How about "look into/explore other possibilities"?

 

[Piscean]

Are there words missing after the comma?

No.

 

[teechar]

Helped. What does "one" refer to?

A person.

Does it refer to the person who is pondering over quantum mechanics?

Basically, yes.

 

[Tarheel]

What was in my mind is: if the form "It helps" WORKS, why doesn't the form "It has helped" work, too?

First, I fixed the typos. Second, it's not about what form to use or what's popular.

Your thinking is wrong. Your suggestion changes everything.

I'm sure there are uses for "has helped", but not here.

I have noticed that ESL learners use perfect tenses much more than I do. The only reason I can think of for that is that's what they're taught.

You always have to decide how much time you want to devote to any activity.

 

[GoodTaste]

First, I fixed the typos.

How about "If 'It helps' worked, why wouldn't 'It has helped"? (Note we are talking about the word "worked" here, no more about "helped".

When using "works", we would have "If A works, why will not B". That is, if (simple present), then (simple future). It can't be both simple present tense. I am not absolutely sure.

 

[emsr2d2]

How about "If 'It helps' worked, why wouldn't 'It has helped'?" (Note we are talking about the word "worked" here, not more about "helped".)

When using "works", we would have "If A works, why will not B?" That is, if (simple present), then (simple future). It can't be both simple present tense. I am not absolutely sure.

Note my corrections above. The following are all grammatically correct and possible in the right context:

If A works, why doesn't B?
If A works, why won't B?
If A works, why wouldn't B?
If A worked, why didn't B?
If A worked, why wouldn't B?
If A worked, why won't B?

As you can see from the first example, it's entirely possible for both to be present tense.

 

[Tarheel]

@GoodTaste If you change the tense of a sentence you change the meaning. Frankly, I'm not sure what you're getting at.
You could say "He has helped me several times," but that wouldn't be relevant here, wouldn't here, would it? I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear.