Talk:Patent val: Difference between revisions
Dave Keenan (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
|||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
:::::::::: And with so many legacies, I must oppose this change since I oppose forced language reforms. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 00:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC) | :::::::::: And with so many legacies, I must oppose this change since I oppose forced language reforms. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 00:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC) | ||
::::::::: Thanks FloraC. | |||
::::::::: It is arguable that the introduction of ''val'' was a forced language reform since, before that, contributors were happy to use descriptive terms like "ET mapping" and "mapping row". So arguably, ''if'' we replaced ''val'' we would merely be undoing a forced language reform. | |||
::::::::: However I don't actually want to replace any existing occurrences of ''val''. I only want to ensure that the way is open for Douglas to use ''map'' as a synonym for it, in his excellent pedagogical articles. And for others to use ''map'' in that way if they choose, going forward. | |||
::::::::: The first thing to do in that regard would be to redirect "Map" to the "Val" page instead of the "Mapping" page, and to mention ''map'' as a synonym near the start of the "Val" page. | |||
::::::::: The only other thing would be to check all existing occurrences of "map" in the wiki (outside of Douglas' articles), and if they refer to a matrix, as opposed to a row vector ⟨...], expand them to "mapping". --[[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 09:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
== proposal to rename "generalize patent val" to "uniform map" == | == proposal to rename "generalize patent val" to "uniform map" == |