"lower bound on" or "lower bound for"

sasha wrote on 11 Aug 2004:
[nq:1]How to say: "We compute a lower bound on the constant." or "We compute a lower bound for the constant."[/nq]
If you mean by "bound" some kind of minimal value here, it should probably be "for". But if you mean "leap", it should also be "for".

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor.
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.

[nq:1]How to say: "We compute a lower bound on the constant." or "We compute a lower bound for the constant." "The constant" has been introduced somewhere.[/nq]
You will find both in mathematical writing. The latter is probably the more common.

J.

THANKS EVERYONE.

[nq:1]How to say: "We compute a lower bound on the constant." or "We compute a lower bound for the constant." "The constant" has been introduced somewhere.[/nq]
The only difference I can see is that a lower bound on the constant is an externally-imposed limitation, whereas a lower bound for the constant is the lowest value it reaches on its own.
The nuance is extremely fine and probably no

[nq:2]How to say: "We compute a lower bound on the ... bound for the constant." "The constant" has been introduced somewhere.[/nq]
[nq:1]The only difference I can see is that a lower bound on the constant is an externally-imposed limitation, whereas a ... fine and probably not worth worrying about. And I don't know how widespread my interpretation of the difference is, anyway.[/nq]
Neither

[nq:1]How to say: "We compute a lower bound on the constant." or "We compute a lower bound for the constant." "The constant" has been introduced somewhere.[/nq]
I assume you're estimating a constant. Either is acceptable. Both are widely used. Very widely. Math, mathematically oriented computer science or physics. I don't know about more practically oriented comuter science or engineering or p