Talk:Breed: Difference between revisions

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 25:

:: Flora: Your opinion may be that making practical sense for ETs is irrelevant, but the people who agreed to use the term "breed" for ETs had the opposite opinion: that that the numbers making practical sense for ETs ''did'' matter, and that this was the entire point of making any distinction. For the difference you mention, we already have "tuning map" vs "(temperament) map". --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 16:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

::: That was … crazy. Do you have source to back up what you said? I briefly mentioned the point to make sure I ruled out the other ways "how {{val| 1 0 -4 }} isn't a val that represents an equal temp", never to expect you'd point to exactly there for the difference between breeds and vals! Now I was saying practicality was irrelevant becuz practicality was supposed to be subjective. If the difference between breeds and vals is as you said, it implies breeds should be used subjectively. Yet in your earlier responses you were saying {{val| 1 0 -4 }} wasn't a breed like an objective fact, and I was thinking there must be something technical about it, like maybe becuz of the negative number? maybe becuz it was taken out of a rank-2 temp? To me any integer val represents an equal temp, and whether it makes practical sense or not is another issue.

::: Another understanding in terminology that I hold but you might differ is that a tuning map is a val becuz (1) a val is a synonym of a map, as you proposed, and (2) a tuning map is a map. Following that, a val doesn't need to represent an equal temp, but a breed always does. So that is a greater distinction between a val and a breed and so practicality isn't the entire point of making the distinction. I'm very interested in what you think of this point here. Thanks in advance. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 17:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:::: When I said {{val| 1 0 -4 }} isn't a breed, I understood that there was no mathematical objectivity to that classification, and didn't mean to imply that there was any. It occurs to me that I've been assuming a standard (prime-limit) domain basis, and that with a well-crafted domain basis, any map could be made into a reasonable ET.

:::: I don't have a source ready to back up what I said and don't have time or energy to find one. I was just trying to help someone on the wiki but I don't care enough about this issue to debate anyone about it. Sorry.

:::: I will stick with using "map", which defaults to meaning "temperament map", where I only need to use the word "temperament" when I need to disambiguate with other types of maps such as "tuning maps". I don't use "breed" in my own work, but I will stick to assuming it means a map which appears to be for a practical ET. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 21:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

::::: Well you didn't address my last point but if you aren't interested enough to do so, I understand. Still thanks for raising the concern about practicality in the concept. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 :: Flora: Your opinion may be that making practical sense for ETs is irrelevant, but the people who agreed to use the term "breed" for ETs had the opposite opinion: that that the numbers making practical sense for ETs ''did'' matter, and that this was the entire point of making any distinction. For the difference you mention, we already have "tuning map" vs "(temperament) map". --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 16:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
+::: That was … crazy. Do you have source to back up what you said? I briefly mentioned the point to make sure I ruled out the other ways "how {{val| 1 0 -4 }} isn't a val that represents an equal temp", never to expect you'd point to exactly there for the difference between breeds and vals! Now I was saying practicality was irrelevant becuz practicality was supposed to be subjective. If the difference between breeds and vals is as you said, it implies breeds should be used subjectively. Yet in your earlier responses you were saying {{val| 1 0 -4 }} wasn't a breed like an objective fact, and I was thinking there must be something technical about it, like maybe becuz of the negative number? maybe becuz it was taken out of a rank-2 temp? To me any integer val represents an equal temp, and whether it makes practical sense or not is another issue.
+::: Another understanding in terminology that I hold but you might differ is that a tuning map is a val becuz (1) a val is a synonym of a map, as you proposed, and (2) a tuning map is a map. Following that, a val doesn't need to represent an equal temp, but a breed always does. So that is a greater distinction between a val and a breed and so practicality isn't the entire point of making the distinction. I'm very interested in what you think of this point here. Thanks in advance. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 17:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
+:::: When I said {{val| 1 0 -4 }} isn't a breed, I understood that there was no mathematical objectivity to that classification, and didn't mean to imply that there was any. It occurs to me that I've been assuming a standard (prime-limit) domain basis, and that with a well-crafted domain basis, any map could be made into a reasonable ET.
+:::: I don't have a source ready to back up what I said and don't have time or energy to find one. I was just trying to help someone on the wiki but I don't care enough about this issue to debate anyone about it. Sorry.
+:::: I will stick with using "map", which defaults to meaning "temperament map", where I only need to use the word "temperament" when I need to disambiguate with other types of maps such as "tuning maps". I don't use "breed" in my own work, but I will stick to assuming it means a map which appears to be for a practical ET. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 21:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
+::::: Well you didn't address my last point but if you aren't interested enough to do so, I understand. Still thanks for raising the concern about practicality in the concept. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)