Talk:Patent val: Difference between revisions

Line 19:

: I also oppose using ''naive'' as a substitute. That word should be reserved for direct approximation. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

:: Thanks for for your reply, FloraC. I'll reply to your points in reverse order.

:: Re: "naive". I agree. Your point — about direct approximation being a more appropriate candidate for that word — is an interesting additional reason not to use naive here. (To be clear, I was not advocating for it at this point; I merely mentioned it as one thing that was discussed in the past.)

:: Re: how "patent" being a less everyday word than "obvious" may actually be ''advantageous'', by better connoting that the thing defined is a specially defined thing: I totally get what you mean there. In fact, I made that point myself during some discussion! That said, this issue of "patent vs. obvious" is superseded by the fact that I think neither "patent" nor "obvious" are appropriate words for this term. This leads me to your first point, where it looks like you've misunderstood my original post (probably my fault! though I haven't been able to come up with a guess as to how you've misread it).

:: You say that my first two points somewhat neutralize each other, but I think that must be because you've misunderstood my second point (which is conveyed in my second paragraph). What I was trying to say about 17-ET in the 5-limit was that it's hard to say which of its maps would be "the" obvious/patent one to use. The simplest/nearest-edomapping one is {{map|17 27 39}} but the best one by many common standards is instead {{map|17 27 40}}. So which one is obvious/patent — the simple/near one, or the best one? My point is that neither can be said to be obvious/patent. Maybe to one person one is obvious, but to another person the other is obvious. And so if there's any disagreement at all, no one gets to claim obvious (while probably everyone could agree which one of them was simple). And I further say that 17-ET is not an isolated example, and that this lack of consistent patentness/obviousness sufficiently problematizes the use of either word, patent or obvious.

:: You do make an excellent point, however, about how "nearest" carries more helpful information than "simple", though. How do you feel about "nearest map", then? I ask because this term is always used in reference to an EDO/ET, so I'm not certain what "edomapping" brings to the table that "map" doesn't already, while I would penalize it for being jargony where "map" is an established linear algebra term. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 02:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Line 35:

Line 45:

: The definition may use some readability improvements but ultimately it's just wordplays. Your alternative definition still involves non-integer edos. Or what else do you think the multiplier is? Imagine a [http://micro.soonlabel.com/Scott_Thompson/edjiruler.html ruler with a varying scale put on the pitch continuum]. 17 means that the octave is at the 17th point, implying there are 17 unit intervals between the starting point and the octave, which means 17edo. And therefore 17.1 means 17.1edo. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

:: Thanks for your reply here too, FloraC.

:: If you mean to say that the multiplier in my definition ''is literally equivalent'' to a non-integer EDO, then I disagree with that. I think it is completely reasonable to interpret this multiplier as just that: a decimal number being multiplied against the [[JIP]], as a step in a technique for finding this specific type of ET map. This conceptualization bypasses any notion of non-integer EDO. I do understand the mathematical reality of this situation quite comfortably, and I am not being willfully obtuse about this, so I could certainly concede that if someone wanted to think about non-integer EDOs while reading my definition, they still could find a way to do so. In other words: I recognize that these ideas are closely related. But it is quite important to me that I've managed to avoid ''explicitly'' using the phrase "non-integer EDO", because I believe that the way of thinking about the problem involving that contradiction in terms is unhelpful and perhaps harmful.

:: But I don't intend to dwell on that matter, which is mostly along the lines of what I would consider to be, in your words, merely a "readability improvement." The item of primary interest to me here is not the articulation of the definition, but the name for the term itself. I'm more concerned about replacing "generalized patent val" with "uniform map". I was only using the cleanliness of this definition relative to the existing definition as one argument in favor of that rename.

:: So, what I'm most curious about is: do you agree that this structure is better understood not as a generalization of the "simple map"/"patent val" structure, but that it's more accurately understood the other way around, with the "simple map"/"patent val" being a specific kind of this? I am quite interested in your perspective on that issue. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 02:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 : I also oppose using ''naive'' as a substitute. That word should be reserved for direct approximation. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
+:: Thanks for for your reply, FloraC. I'll reply to your points in reverse order.
+:: Re: "naive". I agree. Your point — about direct approximation being a more appropriate candidate for that word — is an interesting additional reason not to use naive here. (To be clear, I was not advocating for it at this point; I merely mentioned it as one thing that was discussed in the past.)
+:: Re: how "patent" being a less everyday word than "obvious" may actually be ''advantageous'', by better connoting that the thing defined is a specially defined thing: I totally get what you mean there. In fact, I made that point myself during some discussion! That said, this issue of "patent vs. obvious" is superseded by the fact that I think neither "patent" nor "obvious" are appropriate words for this term. This leads me to your first point, where it looks like you've misunderstood my original post (probably my fault! though I haven't been able to come up with a guess as to how you've misread it).
+:: You say that my first two points somewhat neutralize each other, but I think that must be because you've misunderstood my second point (which is conveyed in my second paragraph). What I was trying to say about 17-ET in the 5-limit was that it's hard to say which of its maps would be "the" obvious/patent one to use. The simplest/nearest-edomapping one is {{map|17 27 39}} but the best one by many common standards is instead {{map|17 27 40}}. So which one is obvious/patent — the simple/near one, or the best one? My point is that neither can be said to be obvious/patent. Maybe to one person one is obvious, but to another person the other is obvious. And so if there's any disagreement at all, no one gets to claim obvious (while probably everyone could agree which one of them was simple). And I further say that 17-ET is not an isolated example, and that this lack of consistent patentness/obviousness sufficiently problematizes the use of either word, patent or obvious.
+:: You do make an excellent point, however, about how "nearest" carries more helpful information than "simple", though. How do you feel about "nearest map", then? I ask because this term is always used in reference to an EDO/ET, so I'm not certain what "edomapping" brings to the table that "map" doesn't already, while I would penalize it for being jargony where "map" is an established linear algebra term. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 02:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 == proposal to rename "generalize patent val" to "uniform map" ==
@@ Line 35: / Line 45: @@
 : The definition may use some readability improvements but ultimately it's just wordplays. Your alternative definition still involves non-integer edos. Or what else do you think the multiplier is? Imagine a [http://micro.soonlabel.com/Scott_Thompson/edjiruler.html ruler with a varying scale put on the pitch continuum]. 17 means that the octave is at the 17th point, implying there are 17 unit intervals between the starting point and the octave, which means 17edo. And therefore 17.1 means 17.1edo. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
+:: Thanks for your reply here too, FloraC.
+:: If you mean to say that the multiplier in my definition ''is literally equivalent'' to a non-integer EDO, then I disagree with that. I think it is completely reasonable to interpret this multiplier as just that: a decimal number being multiplied against the [[JIP]], as a step in a technique for finding this specific type of ET map. This conceptualization bypasses any notion of non-integer EDO. I do understand the mathematical reality of this situation quite comfortably, and I am not being willfully obtuse about this, so I could certainly concede that if someone wanted to think about non-integer EDOs while reading my definition, they still could find a way to do so. In other words: I recognize that these ideas are closely related. But it is quite important to me that I've managed to avoid ''explicitly'' using the phrase "non-integer EDO", because I believe that the way of thinking about the problem involving that contradiction in terms is unhelpful and perhaps harmful.
+:: But I don't intend to dwell on that matter, which is mostly along the lines of what I would consider to be, in your words, merely a "readability improvement." The item of primary interest to me here is not the articulation of the definition, but the name for the term itself. I'm more concerned about replacing "generalized patent val" with "uniform map". I was only using the cleanliness of this definition relative to the existing definition as one argument in favor of that rename.
+:: So, what I'm most curious about is: do you agree that this structure is better understood not as a generalization of the "simple map"/"patent val" structure, but that it's more accurately understood the other way around, with the "simple map"/"patent val" being a specific kind of this? I am quite interested in your perspective on that issue. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 02:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)