> Imagine how much steeper the learning curve would be in medicine or law if they used the same naming conventions, with the same number of layers to peel back: I she kidding? Off the top of my head: diseases named after people. Parkinson's disease. McArdle's disease. Bell's Palsy, Hodgkin's Lymphoma, ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_anatomical_parts... In Law, precedents are referred to by plaintiff a…
I guess historians have an impossible job! Having not read the article, is it possible she’s arguing the similar notion of erasing history because it’s psychologically unbearable for some people?
Mathematicians should stop naming things after each other
341–350 of 406 posts
Re: Mathematicians should stop naming things after each other
#342Hard disagree. Once you get to the advanced levels of any field, terminology being "accessible" doesn't really matter, but being precise does . Areas like philosophy and law actually suffer in my opinion when they overload common words with uncommon meanings, or descend into weird disambiguations that depend on suffixes. For example, in philosophy there's "contractarianism" and "contractualism", and trying to remembe…
> Once you get to the advanced levels of any field, terminology being "accessible" doesn't really matter, but being precise does. And in what multiverse is "Calabi-Yau manifold" a precise terminology? Literally all that can be gleaned from that is that it's a manifold and it's the invention of some mathematicians (or maybe one mathematician with a hyphenated surname). > If "contractualism" were just known as "Scanlon…
The term “polymorphism” is a good example. It isn’t named after someone, but could anyone without a background in computer science have any clue what that term actually refers to? Sure, they could examine the root words and try to figure it out, but would they be any closer to the actual meaning of the word?
I don’t think it makes sense to make field-specific jargon accessible to the masses. Instead I think it makes more sense to make it easily researchable and distinct from more commonplace words.
Re: Mathematicians should stop naming things after each other
#343Hard disagree. Once you get to the advanced levels of any field, terminology being "accessible" doesn't really matter, but being precise does . Areas like philosophy and law actually suffer in my opinion when they overload common words with uncommon meanings, or descend into weird disambiguations that depend on suffixes. For example, in philosophy there's "contractarianism" and "contractualism", and trying to remembe…
Could not possible disagree more. "Contractualism" is far easier to remember for most people than remembering the name "Scanlon". Proper names do NOT easily translate to concepts for majority of people. If you can't properly define your concept without the use of a proper name, you aren't trying hard enough. I think this trend needs to die, and luckily it seems to be falling out of favor. Similar to naming companies…
Re: Mathematicians should stop naming things after each other
#344An important thing for name sis that you want them to be immutable because it's hard to refactor both all the writing using that name, and everyone's memory to change the concept of a spheroid from one definition to another. This makes it hard to choose generic names from the get-go since the first person to use name might not attach it to the best concept for it, making it unavailable for the best concept for the na…
Re: Mathematicians should stop naming things after each other
#345This is one of those articles that might sound convincing to non-mathematicians (because it is annoying to learn names for difficult concepts, and many people can relate to that experience), but will not sound all that convincing to domain experts. It'd be hard to deny that descriptive terms are easier to memorize. Sometimes a piece of natural and/or physical intuition allows such terminology to arise. Scientist and…
Star-autonomous category constructions?
> Girard's paradox
Provability paradox?
> Calabi-Yau manifold
Smooth n-dimensional complex manifold?
> Dijkstra's algorithm
Shortest-path-first algorithm? (I'm cheating here because this is literally an already-common alternative name for it)
> Haber–Bosch process
Ammonia synthesis loop? (Also cheating here, since the "Ammonia production" Wikipedia article uses this exact terminology)
> Otto cycle
Four-stroke cycle? (Cheating yet again, since Wikipedia states: "This is why the four-stroke principle today is commonly known as the Otto cycle and four-stroke engines using spark plugs often are called Otto engines.")
Re: Mathematicians should stop naming things after each other
#346This is one of those articles that might sound convincing to non-mathematicians (because it is annoying to learn names for difficult concepts, and many people can relate to that experience), but will not sound all that convincing to domain experts. It'd be hard to deny that descriptive terms are easier to memorize. Sometimes a piece of natural and/or physical intuition allows such terminology to arise. Scientist and…
If you summarise the article as "John Conway was good at thinking of names. Try to be more like John Conway.", then I think many mathematicians will think it's a reasonable suggestion.
Re: Mathematicians should stop naming things after each other
#347Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are names for products though, not programming concepts. A more accurate analogy would be calling a class a Kay template or calling a for loop a Lovelace construct. And it's great that we don't do that.
Lucky us, we have Booleans, Turing Machines, Bolzmann machines, Markov Chains, Liskov Substitution Principle, ISO 8601 dates, the MIT and BSD licenses (hat-tip to the GPL), and the wholly ambiguous concept of a "class" or "object-orientation"
On-off switches. Or conditionals. Or bits (depending on implementations). Or truthy/falsey values.
> Turing Machines
Symbolic tape machines.
> Bolzmann machines
Hidden-unit binary threshold networks.
> Markov Chains
Cumulative event probability chains.
> Liskov Substitution Principle
Instance Substitution Principle.
> ISO 8601 dates
Big-endian dates (or simply YYYY-MM-DD dates).
> the MIT and BSD licenses
n-clause copycenter licenses.
Re: Mathematicians should stop naming things after each other
#348Earlier quoted context omitted.
I Disagree with you, in Computer Science we have things like: "Quick Sort", "Merge Sort", "Map", "Hashtable", "LRU", etc... etc... They are much more descriptive and easy to remember, even though the Algorithms can be complex themselves. Event the name "Boolean", could be changed to "Conditional"... and be even more readable. Also, Dijkstra algorithm can be generalized to "Shortest Path Algorithm" (there can be more…
Tim Sort, Hamming Codes, Huffman Coding, RSA keys, LZW encoding, Duff's Device, Bloom Filter, Carmack's Reverse, awk, linux, git. We have a lot of things named after those that discovered, invented or popularized a structure or technique. Certainly nowhere near as commonly as does mathematics, I will agree. In CS, no doubt, we often end up on the other end, where a single term means different things in different cont…
Just because it's a common practice does not mean it's good.
Re: Mathematicians should stop naming things after each other
#349Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Once you get to the advanced levels of any field, terminology being "accessible" doesn't really matter, but being precise does. And in what multiverse is "Calabi-Yau manifold" a precise terminology? Literally all that can be gleaned from that is that it's a manifold and it's the invention of some mathematicians (or maybe one mathematician with a hyphenated surname). > If "contractualism" were just known as "Scanlon…
But why do you have to be able to glean meaning from the phrase alone? And how often does that really happen in other situations, when last names aren’t involved? The term “polymorphism” is a good example. It isn’t named after someone, but could anyone without a background in computer science have any clue what that term actually refers to? Sure, they could examine the root words and try to figure it out, but would t…
Because it helps me wrap my head around what it is, what it does, and why I should care about it.
And by "me", I more importantly mean a rhetorical "me", i.e. a random layperson who happens to be a politician or someone else with disproportionate power over things like scientific endeavors. More on that in a sec...
> Sure, they could examine the root words [of "polymorphism"] and try to figure it out, but would they be any closer to the actual meaning of the word?
I mean, a little bit, yes. "Poly" = "many", "morph" = "form", "ism" = some kind of state of being, and from that someone could figure out that if something exhibits "polymorphism" it means it has many forms (and this does indeed provide at least some intuitive understanding of e.g. how a function can have many different implementations under the same name, and that implementation being decided by the form of its arguments).
> I don’t think it makes sense to make field-specific jargon accessible to the masses. Instead I think it makes more sense to make it easily researchable and distinct from more commonplace words.
And this is why the masses write off science and "them nerds telling us how the world works" as useless, and in turn why our planet is dying and humanity's decline into stupidity is accelerating. It's precisely why so few people trust science: because they don't understand it, because every effort seems to have been made to make it entirely opaque to anyone without decades of academic background that the vast majority of people cannot afford (schoolwork doesn't put food on the table).
Maybe - just maybe - we could instead try to remove barriers to entry into making STEM some elitist Kool Kids Klub that deems laypeople as unworthy because they don't have the time or energy to memorize the names of a bunch of dead white men, and maybe then we can live in the world we all want: one where science and scientists are taken seriously, and where we don't wait until it's already too late before we even start thinking about addressing a self-induced extinction event.
Re: Mathematicians should stop naming things after each other
#350Earlier quoted context omitted.
Page rank. I thought git was named by Linus, and to the extent that it is named after him, it was self awareness of his reputation? I remember when Duff's Device was a neat trick; does anyone still use it these days? Edit: a neat trick, not a bear trick.
Page rank is probably one of the more clever names out there. I didn't realize at first it was named after the founder, as it's a good description to how it works.