Talk:Normal forms: Difference between revisions

Line 80:

:::::: Re: Tenney minimal. Yes, I am aware that "Benedetti height" is xen jargon for "product complexity" and "Tenney height" is xen jargon for "log product complexity". In fact I recently added notes about that to their wiki pages here. I prefer descriptive names over eponymous ones, and established ones over new coinages, whenever possible. I agree that there are many distinct types of height that deserve names and that some are simpler than others, but I'm not sure what your point by that is. Anyway, because "simple" and "complex" are antonyms, we might be able to get away with "product-simplest form" then. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 01:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

::::::: Re: positive generator. If you don't want the canonical form normalized to positive generators, many mappings shown in the temp pages aren't in canonical form. I, for one, expect that the canonical form should be normalized to positive generators. After all, we've been using this form for so many years, and it wouldn't be there in the first place if it's undesirable. Anyway, we seem to be in a really awkward position now :).

::::::: Re: Tenney-minimal. My point is that some heights being simpler in formula doesn't imply they don't deserve a name – if you accept ''Wilson height'' and ''Kees height'' you may well accept ''Benedetti height'' and ''Tenney height'', even tho these are much simpler. And since ''Tenney-minimal'' derives direct from ''Tenney height'', and since it's been attested, I think it's a quite standard way to convey the idea of ratio-product simplicity. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 02:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 :::::: Re: Tenney minimal. Yes, I am aware that "Benedetti height" is xen jargon for "product complexity" and "Tenney height" is xen jargon for "log product complexity". In fact I recently added notes about that to their wiki pages here. I prefer descriptive names over eponymous ones, and established ones over new coinages, whenever possible. I agree that there are many distinct types of height that deserve names and that some are simpler than others, but I'm not sure what your point by that is. Anyway, because "simple" and "complex" are antonyms, we might be able to get away with "product-simplest form" then. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 01:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
+::::::: Re: positive generator. If you don't want the canonical form normalized to positive generators, many mappings shown in the temp pages aren't in canonical form. I, for one, expect that the canonical form should be normalized to positive generators. After all, we've been using this form for so many years, and it wouldn't be there in the first place if it's undesirable. Anyway, we seem to be in a really awkward position now :).
+::::::: Re: Tenney-minimal. My point is that some heights being simpler in formula doesn't imply they don't deserve a name – if you accept ''Wilson height'' and ''Kees height'' you may well accept ''Benedetti height'' and ''Tenney height'', even tho these are much simpler. And since ''Tenney-minimal'' derives direct from ''Tenney height'', and since it's been attested, I think it's a quite standard way to convey the idea of ratio-product simplicity. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 02:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)