Talk:Normal forms: Difference between revisions

Line 190:

: I like it. Well-motivated and well-executed. Yes, I agree that positive-ization and equave-reduction should not have been bound together as they were, and that canonical form is the baseline form. They are independent interests. And I also agree with you that their combination will likely be less popular than simple equave-reduction (or simple positive-ization). I expect after your revision, the combo form "Positive equave-reduced generator form" will be left with a very brief section, saying only that you equave-reduce the generator from the positive gen form, and that's all. Again, good thinking and good work; thanks for looking into this. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 16:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

:: Great! I'll work on it soon. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:51, 16 January 2023 view source Cmloegcmluin (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, emailconfirmed 5,160 edits →Revision to the equave-reduced generator form ← Older edit		Revision as of 18:43, 16 January 2023 view source FloraC (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Sysops 18,328 edits →Revision to the equave-reduced generator form: re Newer edit →
Line 190:		Line 190:

	: I like it. Well-motivated and well-executed. Yes, I agree that positive-ization and equave-reduction should not have been bound together as they were, and that canonical form is the baseline form. They are independent interests. And I also agree with you that their combination will likely be less popular than simple equave-reduction (or simple positive-ization). I expect after your revision, the combo form "Positive equave-reduced generator form" will be left with a very brief section, saying only that you equave-reduce the generator from the positive gen form, and that's all. Again, good thinking and good work; thanks for looking into this. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 16:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)		: I like it. Well-motivated and well-executed. Yes, I agree that positive-ization and equave-reduction should not have been bound together as they were, and that canonical form is the baseline form. They are independent interests. And I also agree with you that their combination will likely be less popular than simple equave-reduction (or simple positive-ization). I expect after your revision, the combo form "Positive equave-reduced generator form" will be left with a very brief section, saying only that you equave-reduce the generator from the positive gen form, and that's all. Again, good thinking and good work; thanks for looking into this. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 16:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

			:: Great! I'll work on it soon. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 18:43, 16 January 2023 (UTC)