User talk:FloraC/Critique on D&D's terminology: Difference between revisions

Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs)
Re: Map: new section
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs)
Re: Simple map: new section
Line 58: Line 58:


--[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 00:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
--[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 00:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
== Re: Simple map ==
"Simple map" is Dave's term. You may be surprised that he and fought about it over email for quite some time. At this point, I can't remember what exactly we disagreed about. I can't even remember if he convinced me to appreciate it, or if I only begrudgingly accepted it so we could move on to other problems.
What I can say now is: I agree with your point that "simple map" isn't distinct enough to mark it as terminology for a higher concept, in particular, because we may wish to refer to maps that are simple or complex in the ordinary sense of those words, e.g. a simple map like ⟨31 49 72] versus a complex map like ⟨31 49 72 87 107 115 127 132 140], or perhaps a simple map like ⟨5 8 11] versus a complex map like ⟨311 493 722].
I will ask Dave if he can come up with an alternative to "simple map" that has the desirable property of terminological distinctiveness that you and I both want. If he can't, I think it would be better to use only "uniform map".
--[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 00:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "FloraC/Critique on D&D's terminology".