Talk:Relative interval error: Difference between revisions
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
:: Thanks for the explanation. Yes, only now I see, I that I mixed the sides up. I actually knew what you explained right now. I'm not sure if the word "indirect" is confusing here. My "derived" was seems also unclear. I find that "indirect" has something negative; what about "val mapping" or "val-based mapping"? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 15:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC) | :: Thanks for the explanation. Yes, only now I see, I that I mixed the sides up. I actually knew what you explained right now. I'm not sure if the word "indirect" is confusing here. My "derived" was seems also unclear. I find that "indirect" has something negative; what about "val mapping" or "val-based mapping"? --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 15:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
::: I'm not attached to direct, but "val-based mapping" seems really mathy. You have to know what a val is to even begin to understand it. Speaking of terminology, I find "val" to be pretty confusing. IMO terminology should be at least somewhat self-explanatory. Like "edostep", which I coined but never said what it meant. I never had to, I just started using it and everyone got it at once. The literal meaning of val is value, or number, which isn't explanatory at all. That's why I prefer the term edomapping. "Patent val" is also confusing, because patent in the sense of obvious is, well, not obvious. I prefer "nearest edomapping", but you could make a case for "obvious edomapping". Anyway, just my opinions. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 05:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC) | |||