On Sat, 26 Sep 2009, PSPunch wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
I'd also ask what's the logic in not putting all the AUDIO FILTERS object
classes in the AUDIO MATH section, and/or in not putting all the AUDIO MATH
classes in the AUDIO FILTERS section. But I don't expect an answer at all.
May I take it that there really is no relevancy (as far as you are aware)?
No, I know exactly what the relevancy is, I just don't enjoy it. First, a
person tells himself/herself «it would be better if there were
categories». Then the person looks for characteristic features of the
elements to be categorised, so that categories can be made. Those features
have to be easy to think about. Turns out that one of the easiest features
to think about in this case, are things like: where you first learned the
basic concept of each object class. It's a kind of microcosm of the whole
job-title social structure. Let me give an example.
[lop~] is not an operation you learn in elementary-school or high-school
math, therefore it doesn't fit in MATH. It doubly doesn't fit in math,
because it isn't taught in a Math Department. A Math Department is a
social structure that concentrates on any math concept that doesn't belong
to any other discipline already, because if Electrical Engineers already
occupy the [lop~] land, it's not only redundant for Math Departments to
claim it, it also would make Mathematicians look like Electrical
Engineers. So not only [lop~] is not part of Math Depts, but a bunch of
related topics are just on the border, so they get lumped into a course
called Applied Math, which is all made of pure theory, it's just a form of
discrimination against kinds of Math that are too much in use by other
departments. Meanwhile, Electrical Engineers would say that [lop~] is
math, except when they get distracted by a category system. But most of
all, for music students, [+~] is true math, whereas [lop~] is something
magical and not math, because [lop~] is not part of what they learnt in
courses labelled as «math» before, so it looks a lot more «audiosome» than
+~ does. This is a summary. The actual situation is more complicated.
So basically the category system has more to do with social factors than
with anything else... and those social factors don't help seeing things as
they are. For example, something that unites most of AUDIO MATH object
classes, is that the effect only involves one instant at a time, no
memory, no feedback. This obviously excludes all four [fft~] and [framp~]
from that category system, as those are block-oriented object classes
(which could be the name of another category). But then, there are a few
expatriates that you have to pick from all over to put them in the
instant-oriented category. For example, [cos~] from the OSCILLATORS AND
TABLES category; but also, the [tabread...] classes are instant-oriented,
but they differ from all others so far, because they use data that doesn't
come from the signal. Then we could argue about whether [noise~] belongs
in or not (because it depends on how you look at it).
I'm not completely against categories... I'm trying very hard to make good
categorisations, because it's hard for me to find a categorisation that I
can take seriously, and I'm trying to find one.
As there is a chance of it being widely circulated, I guess he may have
to issue it based on pd-help "as is", and refer to Mathieu's comment if
anyone asks the same,
At this point, I don't expect Pd's category list to change at all, so,
depending on what it is that you're doing, it may be better to just go
with Pd's categories, if you have any advantage in following Pd's
categories.
although if it was never brought up here, chances of it being asked
again may be slim.
Oh, the general topic was brought here in the past. For example, I
remember some years ago there was a thread about whether [namecanvas] is
OBSOLETE or not. It's not. (As you see, it didn't change Pd's official
categorisations).
But also, for each post to the pd-list, there may be 10 or 100 people
asking themselves the same thing, roughly speaking. You don't know. In any
case, downloads of pd-extended aren't on the same scale as the member-list
of pd-list, and then, not everybody ever writes at all.
_ _ __ ___ _____ ________ _____________ _____________________ ...
| Mathieu Bouchard, Montréal, Québec. téléphone: +1.514.383.3801
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
