Talk:IFDO: Difference between revisions

Line 49:

::::::::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 14:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::: I'm glad we're in agreement on the progression vs. sequence thing. Thanks.

:::::::::: And okay, I think I finally understand what you're saying now re: "orthogonality". Thank you for your patience with me. However, it doesn't dissuade me from seeing ODO as the more appropriate equivalence to ADO.

:::::::::: I've tried to use an extended analogy to deal with this issue. Now, this maybe isn't a perfect or exact analogy, nor is it any simpler than the music problem we're looking at, but perhaps a problem with an matching structure but different contents will give us a new opportunity to reason through our disagreement. Maybe it'll give us a clean foundation from where we can identity places our assumptions have diverged.

:::::::::: So suppose we have a situation where the easy, obvious, and popular things to care about are sets of circle centers. Then someone points out that we might consider ellipses, too, but when they start experimenting with this, they realize that technically what we should be interested in when we generalize circles like this are the lower of these shapes' ''foci'', not their centers.

:::::::::: Then people come along to give the community systematic ways to name this stuff. For example, they could use n-LFSp: n-cardinality Lower Foci Sets of shapes which are somehow specified by p. Perhaps this p could be the proportion between the distance between foci and the radius, or something like that. And of course we could use a special case of C for Circle in place of however we'd specify p for circles (akin to how we use the special case of O for Octave in place of 2).

:::::::::: But here's where I think you and I would differ. If I understand your thinking correctly, then I expect you'd say that we should only use n-LFSp, including for the primary use case of circles: n-LFSC. On the other hand, I'd say that we should use n-CSC for Center Sets of Circles, and only revert to n-LFSp when experimenting with these more complex ellipses and their foci. Your problem with my n-CSC acronym would be twofold:

::::::::::# It contains a redundancy, because if we know we're using circles, then we already know their lower foci are their centers, so you think it's forbiddingly wasteful or confusing to say so.

::::::::::# It makes the naming system overall more complex, because we have two acronyms where we could get away with only one.

:::::::::: But I would counterargue:

::::::::::# Redundancy isn't good, I agree, but having some is not a deal-breaker. "Center" conveys much more than simply "circleness", and "circle" conveys much more than simply "centerness"; it's well worth the slight amount of overlap in their meanings for us to convey the full implications of both.

::::::::::# It's more important to give the primary use casers the clearest, simplest acronym, and let the experimenters deal with how to work around it. It's Dave's and my "don't FUSS" principle: don't foul up the simple stuff. In other words, what's more important than the simplicity of the system itself is the utilitarian simplicity of the average users' experience of the system. I accept the risk of n-CSp where someone mistakenly uses "centers" to refer to non-circular ellipses; that may confuse some of the advanced people, but that's on them; it doesn't bother me because it's not endangering the 99% of basic users who are doing the simple stuff with circles.

:::::::::: So if 99% of people have been coming here to deal with and talk about circle centers — and don't have any interest in the fact that these circle centers are also lower foci, which is a more advanced concept — then n-CSC is the more appropriate acronym. And I'm saying that this is analogous to people coming here to deal with overtone-based tunings, which a very basic music concept — and having no particular interest or awareness about their steps being equal frequency amounts, which is a more advanced physics/math concept. This is why I co-designed the naming system which offers n-ODp for the ordinary musician interested in otonalities, and n-EFDp for the more advanced experimenters. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 49: / Line 49: @@
 ::::::::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 14:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
+:::::::::: I'm glad we're in agreement on the progression vs. sequence thing. Thanks.
+:::::::::: And okay, I think I finally understand what you're saying now re: "orthogonality". Thank you for your patience with me. However, it doesn't dissuade me from seeing ODO as the more appropriate equivalence to ADO.
+:::::::::: I've tried to use an extended analogy to deal with this issue. Now, this maybe isn't a perfect or exact analogy, nor is it any simpler than the music problem we're looking at, but perhaps a problem with an matching structure but different contents will give us a new opportunity to reason through our disagreement. Maybe it'll give us a clean foundation from where we can identity places our assumptions have diverged.
+:::::::::: So suppose we have a situation where the easy, obvious, and popular things to care about are sets of circle centers. Then someone points out that we might consider ellipses, too, but when they start experimenting with this, they realize that technically what we should be interested in when we generalize circles like this are the lower of these shapes' ''foci'', not their centers.
+:::::::::: Then people come along to give the community systematic ways to name this stuff. For example, they could use n-LFSp: n-cardinality Lower Foci Sets of shapes which are somehow specified by p. Perhaps this p could be the proportion between the distance between foci and the radius, or something like that. And of course we could use a special case of C for Circle in place of however we'd specify p for circles (akin to how we use the special case of O for Octave in place of 2).
+:::::::::: But here's where I think you and I would differ. If I understand your thinking correctly, then I expect you'd say that we should only use n-LFSp, including for the primary use case of circles: n-LFSC. On the other hand, I'd say that we should use n-CSC for Center Sets of Circles, and only revert to n-LFSp when experimenting with these more complex ellipses and their foci. Your problem with my n-CSC acronym would be twofold:
+::::::::::# It contains a redundancy, because if we know we're using circles, then we already know their lower foci are their centers, so you think it's forbiddingly wasteful or confusing to say so.
+::::::::::# It makes the naming system overall more complex, because we have two acronyms where we could get away with only one.
+:::::::::: But I would counterargue:
+::::::::::# Redundancy isn't good, I agree, but having some is not a deal-breaker. "Center" conveys much more than simply "circleness", and "circle" conveys much more than simply "centerness"; it's well worth the slight amount of overlap in their meanings for us to convey the full implications of both.
+::::::::::# It's more important to give the primary use casers the clearest, simplest acronym, and let the experimenters deal with how to work around it. It's Dave's and my "don't FUSS" principle: don't foul up the simple stuff. In other words, what's more important than the simplicity of the system itself is the utilitarian simplicity of the average users' experience of the system. I accept the risk of n-CSp where someone mistakenly uses "centers" to refer to non-circular ellipses; that may confuse some of the advanced people, but that's on them; it doesn't bother me because it's not endangering the 99% of basic users who are doing the simple stuff with circles.
+:::::::::: So if 99% of people have been coming here to deal with and talk about circle centers — and don't have any interest in the fact that these circle centers are also lower foci, which is a more advanced concept — then n-CSC is the more appropriate acronym. And I'm saying that this is analogous to people coming here to deal with overtone-based tunings, which a very basic music concept — and having no particular interest or awareness about their steps being equal frequency amounts, which is a more advanced physics/math concept. This is why I co-designed the naming system which offers n-ODp for the ordinary musician interested in otonalities, and n-EFDp for the more advanced experimenters. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)