source file: mills2.txt Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 09:32:07 -0700 Subject: Re: consistency From: Paul Hahn On Thu, 19 Sep 1996, John Chalmers wrote: > Re Consistency: I may have missed part of this discussion, but I don't > quite grasph how fractional consistency can be defined on a closed, > cyclic, and equally-tempered tuning system. Or am I just humor-impaired > this AM (in general, perhaps, as I'm sweltering in the Texas heat and > humidity preparing to become homeless if and when my house sale > closes next week). Well, here's the algorithm for calculating consistency level (perhaps I should say _an_ algorithm): consistency_level(ET_number, limit): max <- 0 min <- 0 FOR loop <- 3 TO limit BY 2 exact_steps <- ET_number * log2(loop) error <- exact_steps - round(exact_steps) IF error > max THEN max <- err ELSEIF error < min THEN min <- err ENDIF ENDFOR RETURN integer_part(0.5 / (max - min)) Roughly speaking, find the interval within the limit which has the greatest error, divide that error into half the stepsize, and truncate to get consistency level. If you simply leave off that last step of truncation, you get what might be considered a fractional consistency level. --pH (manynote@library.wustl.edu or http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote) O /\ "Foul? What the hell for?" -\-\-- o "Because you are chalking your cue with the 3-ball." Received: from ns.ezh.nl [137.174.112.59] by vbv40.ezh.nl with SMTP-OpenVMS via TCP/IP; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:15 +0200 Received: by ns.ezh.nl; (5.65v3.2/1.3/10May95) id AA25472; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 19:17:15 +0200 Received: from eartha.mills.edu by ns (smtpxd); id XA25240 Received: from by eartha.mills.edu via SMTP (940816.SGI.8.6.9/930416.SGI) for id KAA01998; Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:17:14 -0700 Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 10:17:14 -0700 Message-Id: Errors-To: madole@ella.mills.edu Reply-To: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Originator: tuning@eartha.mills.edu Sender: tuning@eartha.mills.edu