Template talk:MatrixCat

Matrices, what are they?

moved from User talk:Tuvalkin#Squares and matrices

Again my comment from this edit: So all squares with n*n fields are nxn matrices? No. All nxn matrices are squares with n*n fields. Matrices are mathematical objects. Don't tell me that File:Banner of Bavaria-Landshut.svg is a 2x2 matrix. (Another example: not a 4x4 matrix)

You seem to have some misconception what a matrix is. It is a mathematical object. The term has other meanings, but they have nothing to do with rows and columns. I really don't understand edits like this one. This is clearly a matrix, not just a square with 9 fields.

BTW, I think your decision to use × instead of x was very unpractical. Do you have × on the keyboard? I don't.

Anyway, thanks for Template:MatrixCat. That was a good idea. I think we could further improve it by including properties like binary or Cayley table. mate2code 17:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thanking, but no thanks. The template {{MatrixCat}} was created to gather in the same categor-y/-ies things like tic-tac-toe or chess boards, photos of rank-and-file soldier parades, images of building facades with rows and columns of windows, and views of my bathroom wall tiles with starfish and duckling decals. (Please note that uncategorizing such items from the respective MatrixCat-generated categories amounts to vandalism.)

Can this concept of {{MatrixCat}} be coopted for mathematical use? Maybe, I hope so — although some transversal interlinking from a separate tree remotely under Category:Mathematics would be a good thing, too. It cannot be coopted? Well, in that case I’ll change all instance of "Matri-x/ices" in this whole circus to "Rank&File" o.s.l.t. and will go on my merry way.

As for the rest, excuse me while I hesitate about discussing on the intersection of mathematical abstractions and pedestrain real-life objects with someone who’s smug enough to diagnose my «misconception»s yet on the other hand whine against correct typography.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 18:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A 4x4 matrix

A 4x4 grid

First of all, let me point out that this is an interesting case of communication going a bit wrong. It's often the people who want almost the same, who yell at each other on the internet - usually about very small differences of opinion. We seem to be not far from there, and I don't really understand why. My words seem to sound hostile to you, although they are dry and unemotional. On the other side your words seem absurdly hot-blooded to my. I hope we can sort this out in an collegial manner. mate2code 21:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Not your words are the issue here, but your uncategorizing of multiple files (of which I’m afraid I have seen but the iceberg tip). You’re forcing me to pull up your contribution history and fix one-by-one all your removals of MatrixCat categories — which I mostly did orginally by means of Cat-a-lot: The fixing will be time-consuming and sterile. That enraged me and if I’m coming across as absurdly hot-blooded, that because I forced myself to tone-down my replies and comments. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Above all I have to say that removing something that is not a matrix from a matrix category (and other edits like that) is very far from vandalism. It's correcting mistakes, just like romoving 6x6 matrices from 8×8 matrices. Even if it was nonsense, it would still be good-faith nonsense. It is not without irony that the first words I heard from you are civility, edit warring and vandalism. mate2code 21:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What you did here is vandalism. I trust you’ll somehow correct it, otherwise I’ll have to report that instance of vandalism, as well as the many other you propably perpetrated at the same time. It will be argued that you understood that the word "matrix" was used here in a sence vaster that the mathematical term, and yet you decided to go ahead and remove the categorization just to prove a point. As for "edit warring" it has a precise sence — the moment you press the undo-button to revert a reversal (wich you did and I so far refrained to), with no effort made in communication with the other involved party, you are indulging in it. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the word misconception is "smug" or incivil. You moved matrices out of matrix categories, put things in them that are not matrices, and more or less claimed that squares with 16 fields are 4x4 matrices, and not the other way round. Sounds like a misconception to me. No offense. mate2code 21:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

What you did, and now repeated, is quintessentially smug. You assumed that my boarder reading of the word "matrix" is obviously incorrect, and therefore decided to lecture me and (much worse) undo my categorizing, based on your view. In the way I have conceieved this category tree, as said above, "matrix" takes the broadest possible meaning — you either refused to understand this, or you failed to grasp it. It would not be a problem if you deigned to discuss and enquire instead of starting a wholesale de-categorization campaign. You may say that you meant no offense, but offense — or outrage —, was pretty much felt. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't "whine against correct typography" (trying hard to be civil?), but category names should be easy to type. That's e.g. why it's 4x4 sudokus and Thue-Morse sequence (not Thue–Morse sequence). mate2code 21:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, trying very hard to be civil. When I’m being lectured on basic algebra by someone who assumes I'm an illiterate shmuck who needs such lecturing, I don’t take kindly to said lecturer to reveal himself as someone illiterate in basic computer using. If you don’t have "×" in your keyboard, maybe you should have — I’m sure your computer didn’t come with a keypress sequence for "×" from the store, but then again it surely come with styrofoam wrapping and you managed to get rid of it. Obviously, "Category:4x4 sudokus" should be renamed "Category:4×4 sudokus", etc. Unlike dashes of varying length, it is obvious and uncontested that "×" is the proper sign while "*" and "x" are poor-man hacks to be used only in very limited contexts. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

What do we want?

We want the same. We just don't agree which words to use. You want to categorize things that look matrix-like, and I want to categorize matrices. I think that things like the irrigation grid shown on the right should be in categories like 4×4 grids, and that 4×4 matrices should be in that category. We can create {{GridCat}} to place categories like 4-row grids, and everyone will be happy. You suggested quite the same (change all [...] to "Rank&File" o.s.l.t.), so probably we can agree on that. mate2code 21:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

File:BEinGRID.png

3×3×"▢" and 4×4×"✦"

Fair enough for the first part: We do want the same and you describe that well. Of course I had some work done, which you decided to undo before engaging in discussion, but we’re talking now. It is late, but it doesn’t have to be too late.

Sadly you went ahead and didn’t wait for further input, and changed the debatable "matrix" to the even worse "grid". Bad, bad choice, as this is not about grids, which is a notion less general than matrices: I think the word we need here is "array" — again not in its matematical or computational meaning, but in the general notion of an rectangular, non-staggered arrangement pattern of discrete entities. A grid is an array of n×m nodes, but an array is an… array of n×m anythings. Follows that the same grid which is an array of n×m nodes is also an array of (n−1)×(m−1) meshes (if that’s the English equivalent for the Portuguese mathematical term "malha"). When applied to something like this logo, "array" works for both 3×3 and 4×4, while "grid" works only for 3×3.

I’m requesting for you to put your {{GridCat}}-work on hold and discuss here whether "array" is better than "grid" to settle this matter.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 00:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Windows

I do not really care for words, but I care for proper separation of concepts that are clearly distinct.
Throwing everything that has a rectangular pattern on one heap with mathematical matrices is not good enough for the categorisation behind an encyclopedia.
Throwing everything that has a rectangular pattern in Matrix - a category that is in Linear algebra since its creation in 2007 - is clearly a mistake.
With this edit I didn't "prove a point" - I removed portraits of people from Linear algebra.
If you think that we should use the word matrix in a more general way than we do now, that's ok. Then Matrix would contain all kinds of things, including Matrix (mathematics). But you just decided that it's perfectly ok to throw heaps of photographs in categories that are clearly mathematical - not because of the meaning of the words in their titles, but because of their categorisation.

We probably agree that the mathematical objects called matrices are a special case of something more general, that contains also the facade on the right. I doubt that there is a perfect word for this general concept, but above all I doubt that the word grid is unfit to serve as a substitute for the perfect word that we don't have. When I google "3x3 grid" or "9x9 grid" I find what I expect to find.

I just realized that I have the cross on my keyboard, but many people don't have it, and most people don't care. Category names are a good place for poor-man hacks. To me the "×" in category names is as desirable as "№" or "©" or the correct minus. I just realize that your username is Tuvalkin and not Tuválkin. Maybe because it is easier to type?

wiktionary:matrix#English: (mathematics) A rectangular arrangement of numbers or terms having various uses such as transforming coordinates in geometry, solving systems of linear equations in linear algebra and representing graphs in graph theory.
wiktionary:grid#English: A rectangular array of squares or rectangles of equal size, such as in a crossword puzzle.

You claim that the logo above can only be called a 3x3 grid of ▢s, but not a 4x4 grid of ✦s. So you think it is wrong to call this image a 3x4 grid of clocks? Well, it can be called an array of clocks, and it can be called a grid of clocks. So the word grid is not wrong for things like this. It's ok to have it in the category name, and we can give a proper definition in the categories' descriptions (included by template), where we can also mention that it may also be called matrix or array.

mate2code 02:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Let me know when you have grasped the concepts of discussion threading and indenting — or rearrange your entry above properly so I know you have. Meanwhile, I feel that you raised some interesting points, but that I’d probably be wasting my time discussing them with you. Your unrepentant vandalism was noted, though, and will be dully dealt with. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow! You really enjoy throwing stones in the glass house.
You make photos of flowers descendents of Linear algebra, and call it vandalism when I correct that.
And now you tell me to "rearrange you entry above properly", while you think it's perfectly ok to use interspersed replies, which is highly unusual for good reasons (although in this case I don't mind).
BTW, Commons:Talk page guidelines states the following: The first contributor is all the way to the left, the next person starts with one colon (:), the next person starts with two colons. Then, when the first contributor responds, they start at the left margin again [...] Other indentation systems are also widely used.

We can use the word array. I don't think it is much better, but I don't care about words. I care about categories. mate2code 13:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)