User talk:FloraC/Critique on D&D's terminology: Difference between revisions
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) |
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) →Re: Domain basis: new section |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
:: To set expectations up front, I can already see that for some of your critiques, you will almost certainly not change my mind. But I pledge to stay open to your point of view, and I can see that for some others of your critiques you may well persuade me, in part because you make good points, I care relatively little about the issue, Dave and I weren't in solid agreement about a choice to begin with, or some combination of these and possibly other factors. Thanks as always for taking my/our work seriously and spending the time and energy to engage with it, even when it is to offer constructive criticism like this. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 15:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC) | :: To set expectations up front, I can already see that for some of your critiques, you will almost certainly not change my mind. But I pledge to stay open to your point of view, and I can see that for some others of your critiques you may well persuade me, in part because you make good points, I care relatively little about the issue, Dave and I weren't in solid agreement about a choice to begin with, or some combination of these and possibly other factors. Thanks as always for taking my/our work seriously and spending the time and energy to engage with it, even when it is to offer constructive criticism like this. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 15:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
== Re: Domain basis == | |||
This is an issue where Dave and I never reached complete agreement. He is fine with "subgroup basis" himself. It's only me who doesn't like it. | |||
'''Re: consistency.''' I have deleted the offending quotation. Sorry for the incorrectness. | |||
'''Re: simplicity.''' I do not admit that subgroup is technically more correct than subspace. I only acknowledge that some (such as yourself) argue for this. While JI may only be accurately described by free abelian groups, RTT can be accurately described by either those or by vector spaces, depending on the context or approach. If we take the commonplace, historical, and advisable approach of optimizing tunings of temperaments in terms of projections — i.e. lower dimensional approximations that are re-embedded into the original space, such as quarter-comma meantone with generator [0 0 ¼⟩ — then we're working in vector spaces. That's the way I recommend thinking of it, and I see no compelling reason for most musicians to learn "free abelian group", when it's hard enough for them to understand "vector" and "space". | |||
'''Re: specificity.''' I have deleted the offending quotation. You correctly identified that this reason was based on the previous term we played with, "interval basis", and is now obsolete. | |||
'''Re: inclusivity.''' I have deleted the offending quotation. I accept that we can't hold this issue against "subgroup", as it has never been made explicit or consistent. | |||
I just went ahead and deleted that whole section. | |||