Talk:Patent val: Difference between revisions

Line 80:

::::::::: 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 redirects 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? And "bimap", "trimap", "multimap" work so much better than "biedomapping", "triedomapping", "multiedomapping", as replacements for "bival", "trival" and "multival" in the exterior algebra formulation. --[[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 04:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::: Aren't ''mapping'' and ''map'' just the same word in different inflections? I don't see how anyone would use them for different entities instead of interchangeably. It only makes things confusing. Also switching to ''mapping'' from ''map'' is a relatively recent change I believe.

:::::::::: ''Edomapping'' is synonymous with ''val'' because it's meant to be so. The circular definition problem is independent of names. If you define a val as a single row of the mapping and the mapping as a list of vals, it's circular definition whatever you call it. That said, I agree that it's less appropriate for non-edo vals and that's why I'd stick to ''val''.

:::::::::: Finally, if you're planning to replace every occurrence of ''val'': how about the "vals" in each temp page? [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 ::::::::: 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 redirects 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? And "bimap", "trimap", "multimap" work so much better than "biedomapping", "triedomapping", "multiedomapping", as replacements for "bival", "trival" and "multival" in the exterior algebra formulation. --[[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 04:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
+:::::::::: Aren't ''mapping'' and ''map'' just the same word in different inflections? I don't see how anyone would use them for different entities instead of interchangeably. It only makes things confusing. Also switching to ''mapping'' from ''map'' is a relatively recent change I believe.
+:::::::::: ''Edomapping'' is synonymous with ''val'' because it's meant to be so. The circular definition problem is independent of names. If you define a val as a single row of the mapping and the mapping as a list of vals, it's circular definition whatever you call it. That said, I agree that it's less appropriate for non-edo vals and that's why I'd stick to ''val''.
+:::::::::: Finally, if you're planning to replace every occurrence of ''val'': how about the "vals" in each temp page? [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 == proposal to rename "generalize patent val" to "uniform map" ==