- Home
- Get A Printable Dictionary
- Search Best Words
- Recent Changes
- How You Can Help
- valsi - All
- valsi - Preferred Only
- natlang - All
- natlang - Preferred Only
- Languages
- XML Export
- user Listing
- Report Bugs
- Utilities
- Status
- Help
- Admin Request
- Create Account
|
Discussion of "pi'u"
[parent]
[root]
Comment #1:
Terminology
|
Curtis W Franks (Thu Feb 4 00:15:35 2016)
|
We definitely should not use the terminology "cross-product" here, at least not first. "Cartesian product" is unambiguous, whereas "cross-prpduct" at best is. I actually have never even heard of the Cartesian product being called a "cross-product" before (even when talking about tensors and related constructions which have natural connections with the vector cross-product), so in my experience there is no ambiguity- but, very much so worse, there /is/ an overloading of terminology, or someone is just lying or not knowing about what they are talking. I am willing concede that I might be the one with limited knowledge and experience, but I still believe that the order of presentation of the terms/keywords should be reconsidered and we should also consider dropping or clarifying the term "cross-product" in this context.
|
-
Comment #2:
Re: Terminology
|
gleki (Thu Feb 4 14:38:25 2016)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > We definitely should not use the terminology "cross-product" here, at least > not first. "Cartesian product" is unambiguous, whereas "cross-prpduct" at
> best is. I actually have never even heard of the Cartesian product being > called a "cross-product" before (even when talking about tensors and > related constructions which have natural connections with the vector > cross-product), so in my experience there is no ambiguity- but, very much
> so worse, there /is/ an overloading of terminology, or someone is just > lying or not knowing about what they are talking. I am willing concede that > I might be the one with limited knowledge and experience, but I still > believe that the order of presentation of the terms/keywords should be > reconsidered and we should also consider dropping or clarifying the term > "cross-product" in this context.
e'u do jungau lo cmima be BPFK lo du'u sarcu falo nu cnegau lo smuvelcki be zo pi'u iku'i lo nu tavla fo lo jbobau cu sarcu
|
-
Comment #3:
Re: Terminology
|
Curtis W Franks (Fri Feb 5 05:10:24 2016)
|
gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > We definitely should not use the terminology "cross-product" here, at > least > > not first. "Cartesian product" is unambiguous, whereas "cross-prpduct" at > > > best is. I actually have never even heard of the Cartesian product being > > called a "cross-product" before (even when talking about tensors and > > related constructions which have natural connections with the vector > > cross-product), so in my experience there is no ambiguity- but, very much > > > so worse, there /is/ an overloading of terminology, or someone is just > > lying or not knowing about what they are talking. I am willing concede > that > > I might be the one with limited knowledge and experience, but I still > > believe that the order of presentation of the terms/keywords should be > > reconsidered and we should also consider dropping or clarifying the term > > "cross-product" in this context. > > > e'u do jungau lo cmima be BPFK lo du'u sarcu falo nu cnegau lo smuvelcki be > zo pi'u iku'i lo nu tavla fo lo jbobau cu sarcu
.i ki'e mi ba zukti'i se gidva do
|
-
Comment #4:
Re: Terminology
|
Ilmen (Fri Feb 5 19:44:50 2016)
|
krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > e'u do jungau lo cmima be BPFK lo du'u sarcu falo nu cnegau lo smuvelcki > be > > zo pi'u iku'i lo nu tavla fo lo jbobau cu sarcu > > .i ki'e mi ba zukti'i se gidva do
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/bpfk-list/rsdGy-qvnjw
|
-
|
|
|
|
|