>Do you have the same objection to grouping the simple gates you mention under the name of "boolean logic"?

Why wouldn't he? Wouldn't a term like 'switch logic' be much more intuitive? A switch is either on or off, true or false.

I don't know, I'm just wondering if they're consistent about it, or if they've internalized terms like "boolean" to the point where they forget that they're named in the same way. Given how common such things are in many fields, it strikes me as weird to single out this particular instance.

Along those lines, I also wonder if they object to measuring the power consumption of their boolean gates in "watts."

Imagine if the operations of boolean logic were, instead of AND is BOOL, OR is QCC(for queens college, cork), NOT is DFG(for duncan f gregory), etc

I think that would be more in line with what OP was talking about.

It's hard to evaluate that fairly, since I've known the other names for as long as I can remember.

How do you feel about computing distances with the Pythagorean theorem, performing a Gaussian blur, thinking about data compression in terms of Kolmogorov complexity, or generating random numbers in a Poisson distribution?

I don't really care - I was just trying to point out what I thought OP was getting at that other posts were missing. For what it's worth my opinion is that, if there is a pre-existing word which captures a lot of the meaning, then it is probably best to go for that. If there isn't, then anything is fair game.

That sounds reasonable to me. It seems like this is how things are already done to me. If something has an easy name, then that's used, otherwise the creator/inventor/discoverer's name is used. I don't understand it so maybe I'm missing a short term for it, but it seems like the Hadamard transform wouldn't nicely fit any existing word/phrase.

Just tried to read the Wikipedia article... I hope I'm out of engineering before quantum becomes the new ML.

Let's hope good abstractions are developed so that this level of math isn't what we have to deal with on a daily basis. I could imagine that happening. The math behind how an individual transistor works is pretty hairy too, but we mostly don't have to care.