Talk:Octave reduction: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Introduction: +1 |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
: Second this. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC) | : Second this. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:58, 18 July 2021 (UTC) | ||
: Thank you both for the advice. I took a chance to organize it this way to see how it would go, but I agree now that moving the generalization later on makes more sense. I also planned to mention balanced reduction, so that would be another kind of generalization as well. I'll be working on this today. Thanks again! [[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 12:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:30, 18 July 2021
Merge
Should merge this page with Octave-reduce -- Spt3125 (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Introduction
I don't think that it's a good idea to start from the generalized perspective. I'm especially confused by the fact that the change was done by Fredg999. @Fredg999, as a teacher, you should know that if you introduce a topic in this way, you risk losing the attention of half the students already at the beginning. Would you please be so kind as to change the order to (1) octave reduction (2) generalization? Thanks. --Xenwolf (talk) 11:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you both for the advice. I took a chance to organize it this way to see how it would go, but I agree now that moving the generalization later on makes more sense. I also planned to mention balanced reduction, so that would be another kind of generalization as well. I'll be working on this today. Thanks again! Fredg999 (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)