Talk:Patent val: Difference between revisions

Line 86:

:::::::::: 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)

::::::::: It is true that, in mathematics generally, ''mapping'' and ''map'', when used as nouns, are synonyms, and both are synonymous with ''function''. But there is very little difference between an individual row of a mapping, and a mapping with only one row. So if we were to agree that, in RTT, only an individual row should be called a ''map'', and someone new to the field assumes that a map is the same as a mapping, then there are almost no consequences of that temporary confusion, if it can even be called confusion. For 12edo, its 5-limit ''map'' is ⟨12 19 28], and its 5-limit ''mapping'' is [⟨12 19 28]⟩. The mnemonic is simple: The shorter term applies to the smaller object. The difference rarely matters to anyone, but when it does, at least we would have descriptive terms rather than the confusing and unnecessary jargon of "val", which acts as a barrier to understanding.

::::::::: You may be aware that I am one of the founders of regular temperament theory along with Paul Erlich, Graham Breed, Gene Smith and others, since 1998. In online discussions of regular temperaments, and in our writings, all four of us have referred to any array of numbers whose units are "generators per prime", as a mapping, ever since we first referred to them as anything at all, which seems to have been in early 2001. Only rarely has this been shortened to "map" — typically only as a heading in tables of temperament data generated by Gene Smith. But even Gene is on record as defining a "prime mapping" as a "list of vals", here: http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/p/prime-mapping.aspx

::::::::: I didn't rely on my memory for the above, but spent several hours going through the results of the following tuning archive searches:

site:yahootuninggroupsultimatebackup.github.io "mapping"

site:yahootuninggroupsultimatebackup.github.io "map"

Of course most of the temperament data in the Xen Wiki was generated by Gene, so it is not surprising if it contained "map" as an abbreviation of "mapping". So I assume, when you say that switching to ''mapping'' from ''map'' is a relatively recent change, you are referring to someone having expanded these occurrences of "map" to "mapping". That would be a good thing, and it would open the way to defining "map" as synonymous with "val".

::::::::: In the Xen Wiki and Graham Breed's temperament finder and the tuning archives, the term "map" (and not "mapping") already consistently refers to an individual row of the form ⟨...]. This is in the case of a "tuning map", which maps from generators to cents. This is a map in "tuning space". By analogy, a val is therefore a map in "temperaments space", and so it would be perfectly consistent with existing terminology to refer to a val as a "temperament map" as opposed to a temperament mapping. We are merely proposing that an unqualified "map" should be assumed to be a temperament map, i.e. a val, not a tuning map. Or at least that the qualifier "temperament" can be dropped when it is clear from the context which kind of map it is. --[[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 16:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

::::::::: The term "map" has already been used

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

@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 :::::::::: 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)
+::::::::: It is true that, in mathematics generally, ''mapping'' and ''map'', when used as nouns, are synonyms, and both are synonymous with ''function''. But there is very little difference between an individual row of a mapping, and a mapping with only one row. So if we were to agree that, in RTT, only an individual row should be called a ''map'', and someone new to the field assumes that a map is the same as a mapping, then there are almost no consequences of that temporary confusion, if it can even be called confusion. For 12edo, its 5-limit ''map'' is ⟨12 19 28], and its 5-limit ''mapping'' is [⟨12 19 28]⟩. The mnemonic is simple: The shorter term applies to the smaller object. The difference rarely matters to anyone, but when it does, at least we would have descriptive terms rather than the confusing and unnecessary jargon of "val", which acts as a barrier to understanding.
+::::::::: You may be aware that I am one of the founders of regular temperament theory along with Paul Erlich, Graham Breed, Gene Smith and others, since 1998. In online discussions of regular temperaments, and in our writings, all four of us have referred to any array of numbers whose units are "generators per prime", as a mapping, ever since we first referred to them as anything at all, which seems to have been in early 2001. Only rarely has this been shortened to "map" — typically only as a heading in tables of temperament data generated by Gene Smith. But even Gene is on record as defining a "prime mapping" as a "list of vals", here: http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/p/prime-mapping.aspx
+::::::::: I didn't rely on my memory for the above, but spent several hours going through the results of the following tuning archive searches:
+site:yahootuninggroupsultimatebackup.github.io "mapping"
+site:yahootuninggroupsultimatebackup.github.io "map"
+Of course most of the temperament data in the Xen Wiki was generated by Gene, so it is not surprising if it contained "map" as an abbreviation of "mapping". So I assume, when you say that switching to ''mapping'' from ''map'' is a relatively recent change, you are referring to someone having expanded these occurrences of "map" to "mapping". That would be a good thing, and it would open the way to defining "map" as synonymous with "val".
+::::::::: In the Xen Wiki and Graham Breed's temperament finder and the tuning archives, the term "map" (and not "mapping") already consistently refers to an individual row of the form ⟨...]. This is in the case of a "tuning map", which maps from generators to cents. This is a map in "tuning space". By analogy, a val is therefore a map in "temperaments space", and so it would be perfectly consistent with existing terminology to refer to a val as a "temperament map" as opposed to a temperament mapping. We are merely proposing that an unqualified "map" should be assumed to be a temperament map, i.e. a val, not a tuning map. Or at least that the qualifier "temperament" can be dropped when it is clear from the context which kind of map it is. --[[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 16:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
+::::::::: The term "map" has already been used
 == proposal to rename "generalize patent val" to "uniform map" ==