I recall Paul Halmos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Halmos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Halmos) once advocated for naming things in mathematics descr

I recall Paul Halmos (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Halmos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Halmos) once advocated for naming things in mathematics descriptively rather than honorifically. I recall his argument was that it aids in recall and understanding to name descriptively, and that there are better ways to honor discoverers. I found this statement in "How to Write Mathematics" (https://bookstore.ams.org/hwm https://bookstore.ams.org/hwm): "... surely I cannot stop without a discourse on the proper naming of concepts (why 'commutator' is good and 'set of the first category' is bad) and the proper way to baptize theorems (why 'the closed graph theorem' is good and 'the Cauchy-Buniakowksy-Schwarz theorem' is bad)." I thought he'd said more in "I Want to be a Mathematician" (https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387960784 https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9780387960784), but I just looked through the book and couldn't find anything. (Halmos was a particularist, and thought very highly of examples, and "I Want to be a Mathematician" has examples/opinions of how to do nearly everything in the profession, from teaching to writing to being a department chair to giving talks to doing research ... He was very opinionated, but also specific and absolutely clear, so at least if you disagree with him you know what you're disagreeing about.)