Talk:Optimal patent val: Difference between revisions

(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 4:

A badness unit (''BU'' is just a placeholder) would help to factor out the factors and we could write ''mBU'' or ''µBU'' instead. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

== Not a val? ==

I've been thinking about this concept. It seems like vals are only intermediary here. The actual results, as evidenced by the tables, are not the patent vals per se, but the EDOs possessing them. So maybe "optimal patently-mapped EDO" would be a clearer name for this object. This would make it clear that it is the val which is patent by one concept, and the EDO which is optimal by an entirely separate concept.

Separately I am proposing "simple" as an alternative for "patent", so even better would be "optimal simply-mapped EDO", if you agree with the reasons for simple over patent. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 22:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

: From what I know the OPV ''is'' a val. Using edo here is incorrect and may be only for the reason of convenient linking. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

:: Okay. I'll assume you're correct that the core item of interest here is truly a val and therefore that the use of EDOs in the tables is incorrect, and I've corrected that (at least I put a bandage over it, replacing "Optimal patent val" in the "header" with "ET w/ optimal patent val", and changing link text from EDO to ET for consistency). --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 18:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 A badness unit (''BU'' is just a placeholder) would help to factor out the factors and we could write ''mBU'' or ''µBU'' instead. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
+== Not a val? ==
+I've been thinking about this concept. It seems like vals are only intermediary here. The actual results, as evidenced by the tables, are not the patent vals per se, but the EDOs possessing them. So maybe "optimal patently-mapped EDO" would be a clearer name for this object. This would make it clear that it is the val which is patent by one concept, and the EDO which is optimal by an entirely separate concept.
+Separately I am proposing "simple" as an alternative for "patent", so even better would be "optimal simply-mapped EDO", if you agree with the reasons for simple over patent. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 22:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
+: From what I know the OPV ''is'' a val. Using edo here is incorrect and may be only for the reason of convenient linking. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
+:: Okay. I'll assume you're correct that the core item of interest here is truly a val and therefore that the use of EDOs in the tables is incorrect, and I've corrected that (at least I put a bandage over it, replacing "Optimal patent val" in the "header" with "ET w/ optimal patent val", and changing link text from EDO to ET for consistency). --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 18:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)