Talk:Height: Difference between revisions

← Older edit Newer edit →

VisualWikitext

Revision as of 06:29, 12 April 2022 view source Xenwolf (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, confirmaccount-notify, Interface administrators, Sysops 8,705 edits →Height is not dissonance: re ← Older edit		Revision as of 14:56, 12 April 2022 view source Cmloegcmluin (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, emailconfirmed 5,160 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 14:		Line 14:

	::: Maybe that's naive, but I'd say, it's not obvious that complexity (in a more common sense) needs to be measured in one dimension. Height seems to be a one-dimensional measure. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 06:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)		::: Maybe that's naive, but I'd say, it's not obvious that complexity (in a more common sense) needs to be measured in one dimension. Height seems to be a one-dimensional measure. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 06:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

			:::: Sorry, but I'm a little confused by your previous post; I don't understand whether you're saying that what I had just said was naive or that what you say next is naive. Because I'm confused by that, I'm not sure whether you agree with me or not. In either case, what you say next reads to me as a defense of "complexity" over "height", because many of the "heights" we use in xen are indeed measurements of multidimensional objects: prime-count vectors representing JI intervals. So that's another good point, and one that I hadn't considered before. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 14:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)