User talk:FloraC/Critique on D&D's terminology

Quick note on GPV

As I messaged you on Discord, I do plan to engage with the rest of this, in particular after our RTT guide is finished being published. For now, though, just a quick note: our suggested replacement for "generalized patent val" is not "simple map". "Simple map" is the replacement for "patent val". Our replacement for "generalized patent val" is "uniform map". "Integer uniform map" is a synonym for "simple map". --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for point it out. FloraC (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

When/how to respond

Hi Flora. I'm just checking in to see if you happen to have reviewed the whole guide by now, to see if you might have additions or revisions to your critique. And I'd like to know how best to respond to your criticisms — perhaps in discussion topics right here? I'm still busy looking for a job and need to focus on that effort, but I will get to this soon. Ultimately I suppose that for each of your criticisms the outcome will be one of the following:

1. You convince me of your position, and I make the changes throughout the relevant pages.
2. I convince you to withdraw the criticism, and you remove it from this page.
3. We remain in disagreement, and the pages stay as they are.

--Cmloegcmluin (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think I'm finishing reviewing all the terms any time soon, but the existing sections can be taken as finished so far. I'll update the essay accordingly as you respond, and perhaps you'll wanna do it in a separate page in your own namespace. FloraC (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll probably avoid creating a critique-of-critique page on my namespace, so I guess I'll stick to discussion topics here.

To set expectations up front, I can already see that for some of your critiques, you will almost certainly not change my mind. But I pledge to stay open to your point of view, and I can see that for some others of your critiques you may well persuade me, in part because you make good points, I care relatively little about the issue, Dave and I weren't in solid agreement about a choice to begin with, or some combination of these and possibly other factors. Thanks as always for taking my/our work seriously and spending the time and energy to engage with it, even when it is to offer constructive criticism like this. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: Domain basis

This is an issue where Dave and I never reached complete agreement. He is fine with "subgroup basis" himself. It's only me who doesn't like it.

Re: consistency. I have deleted the offending quotation. Sorry for the incorrectness.

Re: simplicity. I do not admit that subgroup is technically more correct than subspace. I only acknowledge that some (such as yourself) argue for this. While JI may only be accurately described by free abelian groups, RTT can be accurately described by either those or by vector spaces, depending on the context or approach. If we take the commonplace, historical, and advisable approach of optimizing tunings of temperaments in terms of projections — i.e. lower dimensional approximations that are re-embedded into the original space, such as quarter-comma meantone with generator [0 0 ¼⟩ — then we're working in vector spaces. That's the way I recommend thinking of it, and I see no compelling reason for most musicians to learn "free abelian group", when it's hard enough for them to understand "vector" and "space".

Re: specificity. I have deleted the offending quotation. You correctly identified that this reason was based on the previous term we played with, "interval basis", and is now obsolete.

Re: inclusivity. I have deleted the offending quotation. I accept that we can't hold this issue against "subgroup", as it has never been made explicit or consistent.

I just went ahead and deleted that whole section.

--Cmloegcmluin (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Re: Prime-count vector

I disagree that we use "vector" inaccurately. Maybe you don't understand that physicists, engineers, computer scientists, and (most importantly for RTT) linear algebraicists use the term "vector" very differently from the way group theorists use it. I expect that your concerns will seem arcane to our target readership, just as you apparently consider us "ridiculous" to say that a vector is a presentational form, that 81/80 is a quotient and not a vector, and that [-4 4 -1⟩ is its vector form.

--Cmloegcmluin (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)