User talk:FloraC/Critique on D&D's terminology: Difference between revisions
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) →Re: Uniform map, integer uniform map: new section |
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) →Re: Enfactoring: new section |
||
| Line 78: | Line 78: | ||
In conclusion, uniform maps are the more important and basic issue. This is reflected in how our D&D's guide spends a significant chunk of time in the first major article explaining this issue, and almost no time at all explaining the issue of integer uniform maps. | In conclusion, uniform maps are the more important and basic issue. This is reflected in how our D&D's guide spends a significant chunk of time in the first major article explaining this issue, and almost no time at all explaining the issue of integer uniform maps. | ||
--[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 00:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Re: Enfactoring == | |||
I'm glad to hear that you've been putting "enfactoring" to the test in your communications. The concern you share here is about distinguishing "the two types of enfactoring", which led you to revert to "torsion" and "contorsion". Instead of thinking about this as two ''types'' of enfactoring, we think of two ''objects'' that can be enfactored: mappings, and comma bases. And so where you might write, "This temperament has contorsion / torsion", we would write, "This temperament has an enfactored mapping / comma basis." Your way makes it seem like these are two different things on a deeper mathematical level, but we think this could be misleading to newcomers, because it's essentially the same math, just applied to two different related musical objects. | |||
--[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 00:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 00:43, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | ||