Propose renaming sseqtr4i and sseqtr4d

[jkingdon]

The pattern is to use the 3/4 naming convention if both hypotheses are symmetric, but "r" if only one hypothesis is symmetric.

[icecream17]

Well, some of the proposed renames above use "com", like syl6rbb --> bitrdicom. This is mostly unrelated to replacing "syl5/syl6" but I wonder what the difference between "com" and "r" is. The conventions mention "r" ~~ right and "com" ~~ commutativity.

[icecream17]

One explanation is that "r" applies to hypotheses and "com" to conclusions, but after further thought this is also represented with the (1)/2/3/4 system:

(proposed is same unless noted)

bitrdi (currently: syl6bb)
ph 1 2, 2 3 => 1 3 <--
1 2, ph 3 1 => 3 2

bitr2di (currently: syl6rbb) (proposed: bitrdicom)
ph 1 2, 2 3 => 3 1 <--
1 2, ph 3 1 => 2 3

bitr3di (currently: syl5rbbr) (proposed: bitr3idcom)
ph 1 2, 1 3 => 2 3 <--
1 2, ph 1 3 => 3 2

bitr3id (currently: syl5bbr)
ph 1 2, 1 3 => 3 2
1 2, ph 1 3 => 2 3 <--

bitr4di (currently: syl6bbr)
ph 1 2, 3 2 => 1 3 <--
1 2, ph 3 2 => 3 1

bitr4id (currently: syl6rbbr) (proposed: bitr4dicom)
ph 1 2, 3 2 => 3 1
1 2, ph 3 2 => 1 3 <--

bitr2id (currently: syl5rbb) (proposed: bitridcom)
ph 1 2, 3 1 => 2 3
1 2, ph 2 3 => 3 1 <--

bitrid (currently: syl5bb)
ph 1 2, 3 1 => 3 2
1 2, ph 2 3 => 2 3 <--

And on further thought some of these r vs com issues would probably be in another pr. (The corrections to sylbb don't affect this pr, jkingdon's original reasoning above still holds)

[jkingdon]

One explanation is that "r" applies to hypotheses and "com" to conclusions

That has been my thinking, yes.

but after further thought this is also represented with the (1)/2/3/4 system:

Hmm, interesting. I especially found examples like bitr2i and entr2i which would have been called bitricom and entricom based on the (over?)use of com. But maybe we can/should find ways to avoid the com names.

bitrdi (currently: syl6bb)

Agreed, looks good as proposed in changes-set.txt.

bitr2di (currently: syl6rbb) (proposed: bitrdicom)

Yes, bitr2di does appear to be a better proposal, and we could say compare to bitr2i or bitr2d

bitr3di (currently: syl5rbbr) (proposed: bitr3idcom)

So then would you change the order of the two hypotheses?

I notice that there were a bunch of changes from Feb-2013 described with "reordered hypotheses for better logical flow" which I guess I take mostly as precedent that we can consider hypothesis order as well as names if we'd like.

bitr3id (currently: syl5bbr)

Agreed, looks good as proposed in changes-set.txt.

bitr4di (currently: syl6bbr)

Agreed, looks good as proposed in changes-set.txt.

bitr4id (currently: syl6rbbr) (proposed: bitr4dicom)

bitr4id would work if the order of the hypotheses is changed.

bitr2id (currently: syl5rbb) (proposed: bitridcom)

Yes, bitr2id does seem to be a better proposal and could be described with compare to bitr2i or bitr2d

bitrid (currently: syl5bb)

Agreed, looks good as proposed in changes-set.txt.

And on further thought some of these r vs com issues would probably be in another pr. (The corrections to syl_bb_ don't affect this pr, jkingdon's original reasoning above still holds)

Yeah, it seems like we could merge this one (which just has two proposed renames) and make another pull request for the follow up. Did you want to make the follow up pull request or should I?

[icecream17]

I went ahead and made the follow up pr