[time-nuts] ADEV vs. OADEV

[Magnus Danielson]

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