Talk:Patent val/Properties
Consolidate page
I don't think this page makes sense to be separate from the other information on "generalized patent vals".
On the discussion page for "patent val" (the page where "generalized patent val" currently redirects), I am recommending that "generalized patent val" be renamed to "uniform map" and "patent val" be renamed to "integer uniform map" (or "nearest map"). The key point here is that I think it is better to think of the latter as specific types of the former, rather than the former being generalized types of the latter. If I convince others of my case, then the structure of that page would need to be inverted, and the main page would be about the concept formerly thought of as "generalized".
In that case, the material here would simply be merged into that page too. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 18:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- It's the consequence of the previous movement in the hope to hide mathy contents from normies. FloraC (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
- Ah okay. That's commendable. I should have figured that out myself. Thanks --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Page is only about GPVs?
Shouldn't this page actually be "Generalized patent val/Properties", since it's only about GPVs? Back on the Patent val page, the link to this page should probably be moved accordingly as well (i.e. into the section for GPVs there). --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 05:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good point. Yes, we shouldn't have a "[Topic]/[Subtopic]" page when the "[Topic]" page doesn't exist.
- Well, it seems fine to break "Generalized patent val" out to its own page. Can you think of any reason not to do so? --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose. But if we branch RTT partially on a terminological basis and then Dave and I use "uniform map" on our branch, that would force a new page anyway because we think of things the opposite way, with "integer uniform maps" ("patent vals") being a specific type of "uniform maps" ("generalized patent vals"). This is as I proposed here: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Talk:Patent_val#alternative_proposal:_add_new_page_for_uniform_map. If we break the pages up, that changes the hierarchization so that it's not within a page but across a page, so that both ways of approaching the concept can be realized straightforwardly. Anyway, so perhaps we just revisit this issue once I send the survey out to the community about RTT branching and get the results back. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 22:08, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
- Alright, per discussion here, I will not be allowed to add "uniform map" to the "patent val" page, so the way forward for our conceptualization of this problem will be a new page covering uniform map, integer uniform map, and simple map. I suppose I have nothing further to say here about this page. Except perhaps that it might be slightly less confusing if in the introduction, it was clearer that this is still the place to discuss properties of "patent val", though at this time there is only discussion of properties of GPVs. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2021 (UTC)