Talk:Formal comma: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m FloraC moved page Talk:Mapping comma to Talk:Formal comma: See talk |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
: The wiki should be descriptive of what ppl use. Not to mention how ambiguous ''mapping comma'' is. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC) | : The wiki should be descriptive of what ppl use. Not to mention how ambiguous ''mapping comma'' is. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC) | ||
:: I agree with FloraC here. -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 18:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:36, 16 July 2025
Why mapping comma not formal comma?
For pedagogical reasons. To the average person without a math degree, "formal" refers to formal clothes, formal speech, etc. It has connotations of stiffness and awkwardness, quite misleading. And the expression "merely a formality" implies something even more misleading. Whereas "mapping comma" captures the essence of the concept fairly well. We mentally map 5/4 to a major 3rd, not a minor 3rd or a diminished 4th. Because even though 5/4 isn't 81/64, it's only a comma away. --TallKite (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- You shouldn't assume people intuitively define major thirds with respect to 81/64, but in general I see your point. -- VectorGraphics (talk) 09:15, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- But also, I do think the page should be called formal comma, as it is the primary term in use on the wiki, just as with "monzo". -- VectorGraphics (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- The wiki should be descriptive of what ppl use. Not to mention how ambiguous mapping comma is. FloraC (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with FloraC here. -- VectorGraphics (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2025 (UTC)