Talk:Patent val: Difference between revisions
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
:::: I do have what I think is good reason to deprecate val in favor of map, though: "val" creates an unnecessary barrier to understanding for ''newcomers'' to RTT, who in the long run — assuming the community continues to grow, which I believe we all hope it should — will constitute the vast majority. Many newcomers to RTT are already familiar with established terms for the concepts RTT borrows from linear algebra. Even if "val" does have some connection to the mathematical concept of a "valuation", this is of no help in illuminating its music-theory meaning, which is simply that of being a mapping from a single generator to primes. The first sentence in the Xenharmonic Wiki article for "val" says, "a val is a linear map". And the first sentence of the Wikipedia article where "covector" redirects to is: "... a covector is a linear map from a vector space to its field of scalars". So that is why I prefer "map" to "val". --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 01:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC) | :::: I do have what I think is good reason to deprecate val in favor of map, though: "val" creates an unnecessary barrier to understanding for ''newcomers'' to RTT, who in the long run — assuming the community continues to grow, which I believe we all hope it should — will constitute the vast majority. Many newcomers to RTT are already familiar with established terms for the concepts RTT borrows from linear algebra. Even if "val" does have some connection to the mathematical concept of a "valuation", this is of no help in illuminating its music-theory meaning, which is simply that of being a mapping from a single generator to primes. The first sentence in the Xenharmonic Wiki article for "val" says, "a val is a linear map". And the first sentence of the Wikipedia article where "covector" redirects to is: "... a covector is a linear map from a vector space to its field of scalars". So that is why I prefer "map" to "val". --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 01:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC) | ||
::::: Yes, edomapping is supposed to be a substitute for val. Obvs I vote for nearest over simple/patent/obvious. I strongly agree that "val" creates an unnecessary barrier to understanding. Map or mapping is much better. I personally like edomapping even more because it is extremely self-explanatory. In a phrase like "the nearest edomapping for 17-edo" it is indeed redundant, but there I would just say "the nearest mapping for 17-edo". --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 07:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC) | ::::: Yes, edomapping is supposed to be a substitute for val. Obvs I vote for nearest over simple/patent/obvious. I strongly agree that "val" creates an unnecessary barrier to understanding. Map or mapping is much better. I personally like edomapping even more because it is extremely self-explanatory. In a phrase like "the nearest edomapping for 17-edo" it is indeed redundant, but there I would just say "the nearest mapping for 17-edo". See also my comment below in "Uniform map". --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 07:04, 28 September 2021 (UTC) | ||
== proposal to rename "generalize patent val" to "uniform map" == | == proposal to rename "generalize patent val" to "uniform map" == | ||