Talk:Patent val: Difference between revisions

(8 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 97:

::::::::: Of course most of the temperament data in the Xen Wiki was generated by Gene, so it is not surprising if it contained "map" as an abbreviation of "mapping". So I assume, when you say that switching to ''mapping'' from ''map'' is a relatively recent change, you are referring to someone having expanded these occurrences of "map" to "mapping". That would be a good thing. It would make them consistent with the output from Graham Breed's temperament finder, and it would open the way to defining "map" as synonymous with "val".

::::::::: In the Xen Wiki and Graham Breed's temperament finder and the tuning archives, the term "map" (and not "mapping") already consistently refers to an individual row of the form ⟨...]. This is in the case of a "tuning map", which maps from generators to cents. This is a map in "tuning space". By analogy, a val is therefore a map in "temperament space", and so it would be perfectly consistent with existing terminology, to refer to a val as a "temperament map" as opposed to a temperament mapping. We are merely proposing that an unqualified "map" should be assumed to be a temperament map, i.e. a val, not a tuning map. Or at least that when it is clear from the context that it is a temperament map, the qualifier "temperament" can be dropped. --[[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 16:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

::::::::: In the Xen Wiki and Graham Breed's temperament finder and the tuning archives, [there is a case in which*] the term "map" (and not "mapping") already consistently refers to an individual row of the form ⟨...]. This is in the case of a "tuning map", which maps from generators to cents. This is a map in "tuning space". By analogy, a val is therefore a map in "temperament space", and so it would be perfectly consistent with existing terminology, to refer to a val as a "temperament map" as opposed to a temperament mapping. We are merely proposing that an unqualified "map" should be assumed to be a temperament map, i.e. a val, not a tuning map. Or at least that when it is clear from the context that it is a temperament map, the qualifier "temperament" can be dropped. [*clarification added 30 Dec 2021] --[[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 16:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::: I guess I agree that ''map'' is a possible replacement for ''val'', but my point has always been practical. What's the plan? How do you make all the RTT users forget about ''val''? How about all these pages? The letter ''V'' in the formulae? [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 00:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Line 116:

::::::::: I dislike val strongly because the dictionary says it's an abbreviation for value. Which is not only vague, but also misleading because there are multiple values in a single val. I don't see why val can't be replaced with something better. I still like edomapping. I think it's the opposite of jargon, because it's very self-explanatory. For the ED3 case, I propose edt-mapping or ed3-mapping. For the general case of rank-1 mappings that aren't edos, I propose edonoi-mapping. In other words, you just specify what the mapping is used for in the name. For the even more general case of the combination of edomappings and edonoi-mappings, I propose rank-1 mapping. For everything outside of that, I propose mapping-row. I'm OK with mapping being shortened to map in any or all of these cases. I'm also OK with hyphenating, e.g. edo-map or edo-mapping. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 06:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::That's a good solution. Thanks FloraC.

::::::::::Kite, I find all those terms you suggest above to be acceptable (except I don't know what "edonoi" means). I have used many of them myself in the past. But none of them is a potential replacement for "val" since vals include both "rank-1 mappings" and "mapping rows". Douglas and I have chosen to use "map" for this purpose in our pedagogical materials, thereby giving it a more specific meaning than "mapping" within the domain of tuning theory. --[[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 06:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::: EDONOI means equal division of a non-octave interval. It's a fairly widespread term. "none of them is a potential replacement for val" I'm proposing edonoi-mapping, mapping-row etc. as replacements for specific use cases of val, and the term map or mapping as the general replacement for val. So I think we agree that val can be completely replaced by map/mapping. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 21:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

== proposal to rename "generalize patent val" to "uniform map" ==

Line 220:

Line 226:

So what would people think if I added a parallel page? This proposal assumes that the two pages should be firmly linked to each other, and be very clear and up-front about their synonymies. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 01:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

: Okay, I've gone ahead and done this now: [[uniform map]]. Comments and criticism welcome, of course. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 00:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

== Thoughts on changing "patent val," and other terminology changes in general ==

I just want to chime in that I also strongly disagree with changing "patent val" to "uniform map." If Doug + Dave want to do that for their pages then that's alright, but to the extent this is really a recommendation to make a general change to the Wiki then I strongly disagree with it. My thoughts pretty are much on the same page as FloraC on the matter, who has probably articulated it better than I could.

In general, if you have some proposal to change core RTT terminology, please also bring it to the attention of the [https://www.facebook.com/groups/xenwiki/permalink Facebook Xenwiki] group. [[User:Mike Battaglia|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia|talk]]) 21:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

: Yes, strong agree on bringing proposals to the attention of that Facebook group. I would go even further and say that it's also important to run stuff like this by the very active XA Discord server's channel for the wiki. I was certainly planning on doing both of those before I would make any actual changes like this. I merely ''began'' here on the wiki discussion pages themselves, which seemed like a good place to test the waters before wasting wider audiences' time. And as you can see there hasn't been a lot of activity over the past month as we've been focusing on other things.

: Looking back on it, I can see that the original language with which I posted stuff here (which was pasted in September, but originally composed back in May!) was from a time when I felt a lot more bold about reforming this stuff. So yeah, I certainly don't think anymore that I could manage to demote "patent val" to a secondary term for this concept. I would be happy enough to be able to include links from this page to our work that say "Dave Keenan and Douglas Blumeyer use the term 'uniform map' for this," or whatever. Maybe one day it will earn the right to be listed with the main words, such as how Kite's "nearest edomapping" gets to be listed. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 22:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

:: That sounds good - it would really be nice if we could get a "Douglas + Dave Theory" main page of some kind so we could see this all organized at some point. (And I thought you went by Doug or is it always Douglas?) [[User:Mike Battaglia|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia|talk]]) 23:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

::: I'm trying to go with "Douglas". Thanks for asking. Dave writes little on the wiki himself. Here's my work: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Douglas_Blumeyer#Some_of_his_work_here_on_the_wiki --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 23:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

=== Concern about the confusingness of nearest edomapping ===

It strikes me that the "nearest edomapping" would be the [[direct approximation]], so that the name is exactly a wrong self-description. Contrast with something like "nearest edomapping val" where the presence of the word "val" makes the meaning clearer. I really do not think it is a good idea to have this as a synonym for "patent val"; I don't think I've ever even seen it used. If it stays on the page at all, the name needs to be changed to something less confusing. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 21:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 ::::::::: Of course most of the temperament data in the Xen Wiki was generated by Gene, so it is not surprising if it contained "map" as an abbreviation of "mapping". So I assume, when you say that switching to ''mapping'' from ''map'' is a relatively recent change, you are referring to someone having expanded these occurrences of "map" to "mapping". That would be a good thing. It would make them consistent with the output from Graham Breed's temperament finder, and it would open the way to defining "map" as synonymous with "val".
-::::::::: In the Xen Wiki and Graham Breed's temperament finder and the tuning archives, the term "map" (and not "mapping") already consistently refers to an individual row of the form ⟨...]. This is in the case of a "tuning map", which maps from generators to cents. This is a map in "tuning space". By analogy, a val is therefore a map in "temperament space", and so it would be perfectly consistent with existing terminology, to refer to a val as a "temperament map" as opposed to a temperament mapping. We are merely proposing that an unqualified "map" should be assumed to be a temperament map, i.e. a val, not a tuning map. Or at least that when it is clear from the context that it is a temperament map, the qualifier "temperament" can be dropped. --[[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 16:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
+::::::::: In the Xen Wiki and Graham Breed's temperament finder and the tuning archives, [there is a case in which*] the term "map" (and not "mapping") already consistently refers to an individual row of the form ⟨...]. This is in the case of a "tuning map", which maps from generators to cents. This is a map in "tuning space". By analogy, a val is therefore a map in "temperament space", and so it would be perfectly consistent with existing terminology, to refer to a val as a "temperament map" as opposed to a temperament mapping. We are merely proposing that an unqualified "map" should be assumed to be a temperament map, i.e. a val, not a tuning map. Or at least that when it is clear from the context that it is a temperament map, the qualifier "temperament" can be dropped. [*clarification added 30 Dec 2021] --[[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 16:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 :::::::::: I guess I agree that ''map'' is a possible replacement for ''val'', but my point has always been practical. What's the plan? How do you make all the RTT users forget about ''val''? How about all these pages? The letter ''V'' in the formulae? [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 00:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
@@ Line 116: / Line 116: @@
 ::::::::: I dislike val strongly because the dictionary says it's an abbreviation for value. Which is not only vague, but also misleading because there are multiple values in a single val. I don't see why val can't be replaced with something better. I still like edomapping. I think it's the opposite of jargon, because it's very self-explanatory. For the ED3 case, I propose edt-mapping or ed3-mapping. For the general case of rank-1 mappings that aren't edos, I propose edonoi-mapping. In other words, you just specify what the mapping is used for in the name. For the even more general case of the combination of edomappings and edonoi-mappings, I propose rank-1 mapping. For everything outside of that, I propose mapping-row. I'm OK with mapping being shortened to map in any or all of these cases. I'm also OK with hyphenating, e.g. edo-map or edo-mapping. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 06:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
+::::::::::That's a good solution. Thanks FloraC.
+::::::::::Kite, I find all those terms you suggest above to be acceptable (except I don't know what "edonoi" means). I have used many of them myself in the past. But none of them is a potential replacement for "val" since vals include both "rank-1 mappings" and "mapping rows". Douglas and I have chosen to use "map" for this purpose in our pedagogical materials, thereby giving it a more specific meaning than "mapping" within the domain of tuning theory. --[[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 06:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
+::::::::::: EDONOI means equal division of a non-octave interval. It's a fairly widespread term. "none of them is a potential replacement for val" I'm proposing edonoi-mapping, mapping-row etc. as replacements for specific use cases of val, and the term map or mapping as the general replacement for val. So I think we agree that val can be completely replaced by map/mapping. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 21:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 == proposal to rename "generalize patent val" to "uniform map" ==
@@ Line 220: / Line 226: @@
 So what would people think if I added a parallel page? This proposal assumes that the two pages should be firmly linked to each other, and be very clear and up-front about their synonymies. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 01:42, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
+: Okay, I've gone ahead and done this now: [[uniform map]]. Comments and criticism welcome, of course. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 00:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
+== Thoughts on changing "patent val," and other terminology changes in general ==
+I just want to chime in that I also strongly disagree with changing "patent val" to "uniform map." If Doug + Dave want to do that for their pages then that's alright, but to the extent this is really a recommendation to make a general change to the Wiki then I strongly disagree with it. My thoughts pretty are much on the same page as FloraC on the matter, who has probably articulated it better than I could.
+In general, if you have some proposal to change core RTT terminology, please also bring it to the attention of the [https://www.facebook.com/groups/xenwiki/permalink Facebook Xenwiki] group. [[User:Mike Battaglia|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia|talk]]) 21:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
+: Yes, strong agree on bringing proposals to the attention of that Facebook group. I would go even further and say that it's also important to run stuff like this by the very active XA Discord server's channel for the wiki. I was certainly planning on doing both of those before I would make any actual changes like this. I merely ''began'' here on the wiki discussion pages themselves, which seemed like a good place to test the waters before wasting wider audiences' time. And as you can see there hasn't been a lot of activity over the past month as we've been focusing on other things.
+: Looking back on it, I can see that the original language with which I posted stuff here (which was pasted in September, but originally composed back in May!) was from a time when I felt a lot more bold about reforming this stuff. So yeah, I certainly don't think anymore that I could manage to demote "patent val" to a secondary term for this concept. I would be happy enough to be able to include links from this page to our work that say "Dave Keenan and Douglas Blumeyer use the term 'uniform map' for this," or whatever. Maybe one day it will earn the right to be listed with the main words, such as how Kite's "nearest edomapping" gets to be listed. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 22:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
+:: That sounds good - it would really be nice if we could get a "Douglas + Dave Theory" main page of some kind so we could see this all organized at some point. (And I thought you went by Doug or is it always Douglas?) [[User:Mike Battaglia|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia|talk]]) 23:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
+::: I'm trying to go with "Douglas". Thanks for asking. Dave writes little on the wiki himself. Here's my work: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Douglas_Blumeyer#Some_of_his_work_here_on_the_wiki --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 23:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
+=== Concern about the confusingness of nearest edomapping ===
+It strikes me that the "nearest edomapping" would be the [[direct approximation]], so that the name is exactly a wrong self-description. Contrast with something like "nearest edomapping val" where the presence of the word "val" makes the meaning clearer. I really do not think it is a good idea to have this as a synonym for "patent val"; I don't think I've ever even seen it used. If it stays on the page at all, the name needs to be changed to something less confusing. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 21:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)