Talk:Patent val: Difference between revisions

Line 75:

:::::::: I understand what I'm tryna argue is counterintuitive. Maybe I failed to make the context clear. It's this: ''val'' can't be replaced entirely by ''map''. You can replace this word in the phrase ''patent val'', but beyond this phrase, it can't be replaced by all occurrences. It turns up in all the temp pages, for example, where simply replacing the lines of ''vals'' to ''maps'' isn't appropriate. It has to do with the concern that ''val'' isn't totally synonymous with ''map''. ''Val'' or ''edomapping'' (I reckon these two are synonymous) emphasises itself being an individual row of the map. Therefore, ''val'' remains a word that's likely to be encountered by those who work with RTT even if it's removed from the phrase ''patent val''. That's why we hope to keep people familiar with both terms by using the term of lower use rate more, which can be explained through Shannon entropy. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 01:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

: If we can't agree on a replacement for "val", there seems little point in pursuing the other proposed terminology changes. So, Kite and/or Flora, please explain why you claim that "edomapping" is a suitable replacement for "val" when, as Douglas mentioned, vals need not be related to EDOs at all, e.g. they may be ED3 maps, or as the the [[Val]] article says, "It's very common for vals to refer to EDOs specifically, although they also show us how to relate larger chains of generators to JI as well (such as a stack of meantone fifths)". i.e. a val can be a single row of a mapping for a temperament of rank greater than 1, and therefore not directly related to an ED of any kind. And in case that isn't enough, the [[Mapping]] article makes it clear that a "mapping" is a ''list'' of vals, which can be viewed as a matrix. Of course some mappings contain only one val, and so a val could be considered to be a (full-rank) rank-1 mapping, but it would be viciously circular to define a mapping as a list of rank-1 mappings, or a matrix as a list of rank-1 matrices.

::::::::: If we can't agree on a replacement for "val", there seems little point in pursuing the other proposed terminology changes. So, Kite and/or Flora, please explain why you claim that "edomapping" is a suitable replacement for "val" when, as Douglas mentioned, vals need not be related to EDOs at all, e.g. they may be ED3 maps, or as the the [[Val]] article says, "It's very common for vals to refer to EDOs specifically, although they also show us how to relate larger chains of generators to JI as well (such as a stack of meantone fifths)". i.e. a val can be a single row of a mapping for a temperament of rank greater than 1, and therefore not directly related to an ED of any kind. And in case that isn't enough, the [[Mapping]] article makes it clear that a "mapping" is a ''list'' of vals, which can be viewed as a matrix. Of course some mappings contain only one val, and so a val could be considered to be a (full-rank) rank-1 mapping, but it would be viciously circular to define a mapping as a list of rank-1 mappings, or a matrix as a list of rank-1 matrices.

And please explain what prevents us from defining "map" in RTT as synonymous with "val", given that the [[Val]] article begins, "A val is a linear map representing ...". I see that [[Map]] currently redirect to [[Mapping]], but I see no reason why it must do so. Why not use the shorter term "map" for the lower-level objects of which mappings are composed. ~~Aren~~'t we more likely to succeed in replacing "val" in people's existing usage, if the replacement has only one syllable, like the original? [[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 04:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

::::::::: And please explain what prevents us from defining "map" in RTT as synonymous with "val", given that the [[Val]] article begins, "A val is a linear map representing ...". I see that [[Map]] currently redirect to [[Mapping]], but I see no reason why it must do so. Why not use the shorter term "map" for the lower-level objects of which mappings are composed. And aren't we more likely to succeed in replacing "val" in people's existing usage, if the replacement has only one syllable, like the original? [[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 04:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

== proposal to rename "generalize patent val" to "uniform map" ==

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 :::::::: I understand what I'm tryna argue is counterintuitive. Maybe I failed to make the context clear. It's this: ''val'' can't be replaced entirely by ''map''. You can replace this word in the phrase ''patent val'', but beyond this phrase, it can't be replaced by all occurrences. It turns up in all the temp pages, for example, where simply replacing the lines of ''vals'' to ''maps'' isn't appropriate. It has to do with the concern that ''val'' isn't totally synonymous with ''map''. ''Val'' or ''edomapping'' (I reckon these two are synonymous) emphasises itself being an individual row of the map. Therefore, ''val'' remains a word that's likely to be encountered by those who work with RTT even if it's removed from the phrase ''patent val''. That's why we hope to keep people familiar with both terms by using the term of lower use rate more, which can be explained through Shannon entropy. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 01:26, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
-: If we can't agree on a replacement for "val", there seems little point in pursuing the other proposed terminology changes. So, Kite and/or Flora, please explain why you claim that "edomapping" is a suitable replacement for "val" when, as Douglas mentioned, vals need not be related to EDOs at all, e.g. they may be ED3 maps, or as the the [[Val]] article says, "It's very common for vals to refer to EDOs specifically, although they also show us how to relate larger chains of generators to JI as well (such as a stack of meantone fifths)". i.e. a val can be a single row of a mapping for a temperament of rank greater than 1, and therefore not directly related to an ED of any kind. And in case that isn't enough, the [[Mapping]] article makes it clear that a "mapping" is a ''list'' of vals, which can be viewed as a matrix. Of course some mappings contain only one val, and so a val could be considered to be a (full-rank) rank-1 mapping, but it would be viciously circular to define a mapping as a list of rank-1 mappings, or a matrix as a list of rank-1 matrices.
+::::::::: If we can't agree on a replacement for "val", there seems little point in pursuing the other proposed terminology changes. So, Kite and/or Flora, please explain why you claim that "edomapping" is a suitable replacement for "val" when, as Douglas mentioned, vals need not be related to EDOs at all, e.g. they may be ED3 maps, or as the the [[Val]] article says, "It's very common for vals to refer to EDOs specifically, although they also show us how to relate larger chains of generators to JI as well (such as a stack of meantone fifths)". i.e. a val can be a single row of a mapping for a temperament of rank greater than 1, and therefore not directly related to an ED of any kind. And in case that isn't enough, the [[Mapping]] article makes it clear that a "mapping" is a ''list'' of vals, which can be viewed as a matrix. Of course some mappings contain only one val, and so a val could be considered to be a (full-rank) rank-1 mapping, but it would be viciously circular to define a mapping as a list of rank-1 mappings, or a matrix as a list of rank-1 matrices.
-And please explain what prevents us from defining "map" in RTT as synonymous with "val", given that the [[Val]] article begins, "A val is a linear map representing ...". I see that [[Map]] currently redirect to [[Mapping]], but I see no reason why it must do so. Why not use the shorter term "map" for the lower-level objects of which mappings are composed. Aren't we more likely to succeed in replacing "val" in people's existing usage, if the replacement has only one syllable, like the original? [[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 04:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
+::::::::: And please explain what prevents us from defining "map" in RTT as synonymous with "val", given that the [[Val]] article begins, "A val is a linear map representing ...". I see that [[Map]] currently redirect to [[Mapping]], but I see no reason why it must do so. Why not use the shorter term "map" for the lower-level objects of which mappings are composed. And aren't we more likely to succeed in replacing "val" in people's existing usage, if the replacement has only one syllable, like the original? [[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 04:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 == proposal to rename "generalize patent val" to "uniform map" ==