Tom Van Baak skrev: >> Trouble is, the algorithm Tom and Ulrich wants to denote OAVAR others >> have already denoted AVAR, thus causing ambiguity. > > One can equally say the algorithm you now want to call simply > "AVAR" others long before you chose to call "overlapping AVAR" > in order to clearly distinguish it from the pre-existing label that > you no longer even want to call "AVAR".
I think you missed my point... I didn't want to call it that. I notice that it is already called AVAR. > Personally I prefer to call it AVAR/ADEV when the implementation > isn't relevant; and in those cases when it is, I specifically qualify > the name with something like "normal" vs. "overlapping". That > removes the ambiguity regardless of historical interpretation. This is a good resolution. I would rather prefer "normal" being replaced with "original" or something as the context would select which is the "normal" one, which is a subjective matter. The definition actually does not result in a particular algorithm (which popular beleif seems to imply), so one has to be carefull in putting judgement or preference in the prefix. > We've beat this to death now and all understand the issues, yes? I think this particular issue is beaten pretty dead by now. I at least picked up a few important lessons. I hope others did too. Cheers, Magnus _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
