Talk:Patent val: Difference between revisions

Line 29:

:: 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)

::: I believe ''edomapping'' is supposed to be a substitute for ''val'', referring to an individual line of the map.

::: ''Nearest val/map'' is fine and it's already there. Yet if you mean by renaming to replace every instance of ''patent val'' on this wiki, I suspect that's beyond practical. Consider all the legacies, for example, the ''p'' in the wart notation. (I, for one, also don't plan to change my idiolect until a majority of people has made the transition.) [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 22:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Line 53:

Line 57:

:: 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)

::: There's no reason to introduce the entity of a "decimal number multiplied against the jip", and if you do it, it needs an explanation. That's to ask what it is. The answer is the division number as illustrated by our ruler. Besides, you worded like avoiding explicit use of non-integer edos is an achievement, which I don't exactly agree, and to me this attempt sounds forced. In particular, I don't agree that non-integer edos involve contradiction. It's the same cognitive process as how people learn division: we first divide things by integers, and then we learn to extend the divisors to non-integers. Does division by a non-integer divisor involve contradiction? It doesn't.

::: The cognitive process I mentioned above therefore leads to the reason why ''generalized patent val'' is friendly to our minds. Moreover, I like that the relationship between patent val and generalized patent val is demonstrated by the name in that one contains the other. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 22:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 :: 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)
+::: I believe ''edomapping'' is supposed to be a substitute for ''val'', referring to an individual line of the map.
+::: ''Nearest val/map'' is fine and it's already there. Yet if you mean by renaming to replace every instance of ''patent val'' on this wiki, I suspect that's beyond practical. Consider all the legacies, for example, the ''p'' in the wart notation. (I, for one, also don't plan to change my idiolect until a majority of people has made the transition.) [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 22:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
 == proposal to rename "generalize patent val" to "uniform map" ==
@@ Line 53: / Line 57: @@
 :: 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)
+::: There's no reason to introduce the entity of a "decimal number multiplied against the jip", and if you do it, it needs an explanation. That's to ask what it is. The answer is the division number as illustrated by our ruler. Besides, you worded like avoiding explicit use of non-integer edos is an achievement, which I don't exactly agree, and to me this attempt sounds forced. In particular, I don't agree that non-integer edos involve contradiction. It's the same cognitive process as how people learn division: we first divide things by integers, and then we learn to extend the divisors to non-integers. Does division by a non-integer divisor involve contradiction? It doesn't.
+::: The cognitive process I mentioned above therefore leads to the reason why ''generalized patent val'' is friendly to our minds. Moreover, I like that the relationship between patent val and generalized patent val is demonstrated by the name in that one contains the other. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 22:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)