User talk:FloraC/Critique on D&D's terminology: Difference between revisions
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) →Re: Held interval: new section |
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) →Re: Map: new section |
||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
With "held-interval", we designed a way to speak about this concept in this context which clearly, concisely, and completely expresses it for our target audience, who are musicians, not mathematicians. So at the least, we're talking about some sort of "interval". What kind of interval, though? We might consider "constrained interval", but that's incomplete, because it leaves open to question how exactly it is constrained. A more specific term such as "constrained-to-pure interval" or perhaps "pure-constrained interval" would suffice, but "held interval" is shorter and sweeter than those. (Then we typically hyphenate to "held-interval basis" for clarity in some contexts.) | With "held-interval", we designed a way to speak about this concept in this context which clearly, concisely, and completely expresses it for our target audience, who are musicians, not mathematicians. So at the least, we're talking about some sort of "interval". What kind of interval, though? We might consider "constrained interval", but that's incomplete, because it leaves open to question how exactly it is constrained. A more specific term such as "constrained-to-pure interval" or perhaps "pure-constrained interval" would suffice, but "held interval" is shorter and sweeter than those. (Then we typically hyphenate to "held-interval basis" for clarity in some contexts.) | ||
--[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 00:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Re: Map == | |||
I am aware of Gene's explanation and defense of the term "val"; I understand that you are compelled by it, but I remain as unconvinced by Gene's words as Dave was during that conversation, and my target readership will feel the same way. So I also have nothing to repeat from that thread you linked. I think Dave clearly won that debate (to be clear, that means that we accept that "val" may be appropriate in certain very specific cases in exchanges between advanced mathematicians, wherever one finds needs to distinguish between an ordinary linear map and a "finitely generated homomorphic mapping from Q+ to Z", but in the 99% of RTT cases where this distinction is not useful, "map" is the term to use). I will here repeat, however, the reasoning why Dave and I recommend not using "val", as we wrote it up on the [[map]] page: | |||
Dave and Douglas recommend using "map" rather than "val", for two reasons. First, "map" is a basic linear algebra term with wide familiarity (being specialized for this purpose) while "val" is unnecessary jargon that creates a barrier to understanding by newcomers. Second, the coinage of "val" from the obscure mathematical term "valuation" is tenuous and unlikely to provide helpful insight: "p-adic valuation" is an obscure term for "prime count", which would be an element of a prime-count vector ("monzo"), not a map ("val"). | |||
As for Gene's death, I am sensitive to the fact that he was cruelly taken from us before his time, and that his friends and followers should mourn his passing. What ''I'' find "uncool" is how you've invoked his death in an attempt to chill efforts to question his work. We cannot simply end debate of people's ideas an account of their death. | |||
--[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 00:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 00:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC) | ||