www.alphadictionary.com

Someone asked me to explain the difference between "identical to" and "identical with," but I couldn't find any.

Does anyone else make a distinction? If so, what is it?

Cheers,

Personally, I would never say identical with.

Along the same lines, I have a problem with "different from/to." "To" bugs me.

Extra thought:

Perhaps "identical with" is a confusion with "identify with"?

Personally, I would never say identical with.

Along the same lines, I have a problem with "different from/to." "To" bugs me.

What he said; absolutely!

Slava,

It has taken a few days to get the document with the original expression back. Please excuse the delay.

Because this expression was part of an argument presented to a patent examiner, the details must remain confidential, but I will paraphrase the context as follows:

". . . the invention determines whether [information type A] is identical to [certain stored information], while [the reference determines] whether [information type A] is identical with one element of [a stored list]."

The words "to" and "with" are in bold face in the original.
The usage is careful formal legalese.
The author clearly thinks there is a distinction between
"identical to" and "identical with."
Note that the words I have replaced with [information type A] are identical at both locations in the sentence.

Can you or anyone else define what that distinction might be?[/b][/u]

Can you or anyone else define what that distinction might be?

Mmmmm ... that distinction may only exist in the mind of the Party of the First Part, as opposed to any and all distinctions which may or may not exist, now or in the future, against and/or with the Party of the Second Part, except where prohibited by the full extent of the law...

Basically, I'd agree w/gailr. I'm going to vote for there being no distinction, except in the minds of the lawyers. Let's track down them what wrote this drivel, and get them to define the difference, if they can.

BTW, love the fading font size. It gives a nice visualization to the legalese.

Slava,

... ". . . the invention determines whether [information type A] is identical to [certain stored information], while [the reference determines] whether [information type A] is identical with one element of [a stored list]."

The words "to" and "with" are in bold face in the original.
The usage is careful formal legalese.
The author clearly thinks there is a distinction between
"identical to" and "identical with."
Note that the words I have replaced with [information type A] are identical at both locations in the sentence.

Can you or anyone else define what that distinction might be?[/b][/u]

Perhaps is has to do with "number," in that the second reference refers to "one element of a list" as opposed to
"certain information."

Doing a Yahoo! search I found an article at Pain In The English, it's postings, not a definitive answer.

Then again, the 10th link listed happend to be this particular thread.

I'll keep looking. My ancient Prentice Hall Handbook for Writers is around here somewhere ...