This is an Opt In Archive . We would like to hear from you if you want your posts included. For the contact address see About this archive. All posts are copyright (c).

- Contents - Hide Contents - Home - Section 10

Previous Next

9000 9050 9100 9150 9200 9250 9300 9350 9400 9450 9500 9550 9600 9650 9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950

9050 - 9075 -



top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9050 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 22:59:52

Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament

From: Graham Breed

Paul Erlich wrote:

> Wow. How did you find that?
Briefly (use the Reply thing so that indentation works), Python 2.2.2 (#2, Feb 5 2003, 10:40:08) [GCC 3.2.1 (Mandrake Linux 9.1 3.2.1-5mdk)] on linux-i386 Type "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. IDLE 0.8 -- press F1 for help
>>> import temper >>> h12 = temper.BestET(12,temper.limit5) >>> ~temper.Wedgie(h12)^temper.WedgableRatio((81,80)) {} >>> ~temper.Wedgie(h12)^temper.WedgableRatio((128,125)) {} >>> temper.factorizeRatio(128,125)
(7, 0, -3, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0)
>>> def badness(a,b,c):
return (a + b*temper.log2(3) + c*temper.log2(5)) / ( abs(a) + abs(b)*temper.log2(3) + abs(c)*temper.log2(5))
>>> for i in range(20):
for j in range(-20,20): if i or j: print "%i %i %f" %( i, j, badness( 7*j - 4*i, 4*i, -i - 3*j)) 0 -20 -0.002450 0 -19 -0.002450 0 -18 -0.002450 0 -17 -0.002450 0 -16 -0.002450 0 -15 -0.002450 0 -14 -0.002450 ... 7 -2 0.000643 7 -1 0.001029 7 0 0.001415 7 1 0.001802 7 2 0.002189 7 3 0.002577 7 4 0.002964 7 5 0.002894 7 6 0.002841 ... 19 15 0.002864 19 16 0.002846 19 17 0.002829 19 18 0.002813 19 19 0.002799
>>> badness(0,28,-19) 0.0029641729677381511 >>> psize = 28*temper.log2(3) - 19 * temper.log2(5) >>> worstbad = 0.0 >>> for i in range(100):
for j in range(-100,100): if i or j: worstbad=max(worstbad, abs(badness( 7*j - 4*i, 4*i, -i - 3*j)))
>>> worstbad 0.0029641729677381628 >>> worstbad/badness(0,28,-19) 1.000000000000004 >>> (1+worstbad) * temper.log2(5)/28*12 0.99806172487682532 >>> (1-worstbad) * temper.log2(3)/19*12 0.99806172487682532 >>> print '%i:%i'%(3**28, 5**19) 22876792454961:19073486328125
>> TOPping it gives a narrow octave of 0.99806 2:1 octaves. > >
> Shall I proceed to calculate Tenney-weighted errors for all (well, a > bunch of) intervals? I hope you're onto something!
If you like.
> I thought that's what you were talking about in the thread where I > brought them up! Odd limit, right?
No, a lattice for octave-equivalent ratios.
> Did someone publish it before? It's currently not Gene's way, anyway.
How about Tenney? Graham
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9051 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:24:44

Subject: Re: TOP and normed vector spaces

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> 
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: >
>>> For a rational number, vp is the p-adic valuation of number q, that >>> is,the exponent in the factorization of q into primes. For other >>> points in the Tenney space it's just a coordinate. >>
>> There are no other points in the Tenney space. Anyway, I lost the >> train of thought. >
> Then why did you correct me to "Tenney space"?
What does that have to do with it? I just meant I lost where I was in my thinking when I stopped to ask you about the v's.
> Presumably, I knew what > space I wanted even if I didn't have the right name for it. There > *are* other points in my space, and what you seem to be talking about > is a lattice.
OK, why do we need a space and not a lattice?
>>>>> and using the same proceedure we use to get >>>>> a unique minimax we can find a unique minimal distance point >> TOP >>> at
>>>>> this minimum distance from SIZE >>>>
>>>> not following . . . >>>
>>> Remember, we have a way of measuring distance between tuning maps. >>
>> In the dual space? >
> Correct. Tuning maps are points in the dual space, and that is a > normed vector space, and hence a metric space, so we know the distance > between two tuning maps. One, SIZE, is the JI tuning map. We want a > tuning map in the subspace Null(C) as close as possible to SIZE.
OK . . .
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9052 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:03:01

Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament

From: Graham Breed

> Graham, it sure doesn't look like you're using Euclidean distance > here!!!
No, I'm not.
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9053 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:35:17

Subject: Re: Temperament agreement

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> 
wrote:
> Continued from the tuning list. > Paul:
>> With my (Tenney) complexity and (all-interval-Tenney-minimax) error >> measures? >
> With these it seems I need to scale the parameters to > k=0.002 > p=0.5 > and max badness = 75 > > where badness = complexity * exp((error/k)**p) > > I'd be very interested to see how that compares with your other cutoff > lines. See Yahoo groups: /tuning_files/files/Erlich/dave3... * [with cont.]
It looks like going back to logarithmic error scaling would be better for seeing what is going on here . . . Matlab is chugging . . .
> These errors and complexities don't seem to have meaningful units. > > Complexity used to have units of generators per diamond and error >used > to have units of cents, both things you could relate to fairly >directly.
Here, complexity is length in the Tenney lattice = log2(n*d), and error is maximum over all intervals (or merely a simplest few, if you wish) of (cents error)/(interval complexity), where interval complexity is again log2(n*d). Most intervals achieve this maximum in the tuning in question. One advantage is that, if you choose to add more intervals into your optimization criterion, the optimum doesn't change.
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9054 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:03:55

Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament

From: Graham Breed

Paul Erlich wrote:

> Well then we are talking about different things. I'm talking > about "expressibility" as the distance measure.
That's an entirely different part of the message you quoted, a few back. Graham
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9055 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 08:46:00

Subject: Re: TOP and normed vector spaces

From: Gene Ward Smith

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> 
wrote:

> OK, why do we need a space and not a lattice?
I want a metric on the dual space of linear functionals, so I start out with a normed vector space with which to define the dual. Let's put it another way. If vp is the p-adic valuation and T is a tuning map, then for a p-limit rational number q we have q = 2^v2(q) 3^v3(q) ... p^vp(q) A tuning map has numbers r2~2, r3~3, ... rp~p and is defined by T(q) = r2^v2(q) r3^v3(q) ... rp^vp(q) The norm ||T|| of the above tuning map (dual to the Tenney norm) is ||T|| = Max(|log2(r2)|, log3(r3), ..., logp(rp))|| However, we are not so much interested in the norm as in its distance from the JI tuning map which I've called SIZE, which is ||T - SIZE|| = Max(|log2(r2/2)|, |log3(r3/3)|, ..., |logp(rp/p)|) It is this which we want to minimize over the subspace of tuning maps such that T(c)=1 (writing it multiplicatively) for each comma c we are tempering out.
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9056 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:07:51

Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:
> Paul Erlich wrote: >
>> Wow. How did you find that? >
> Briefly (use the Reply thing so that indentation works), > 22876792454961:19073486328125
So it was a finite search? How do you know you won't keep finding worse and worse examples if you go farther out? You might be approaching a limit, but how do you know you'll ever reach it?
>>> TOPping it gives a narrow octave of 0.99806 2:1 octaves. >> >>
>> Shall I proceed to calculate Tenney-weighted errors for all (well, a >> bunch of) intervals? I hope you're onto something! >
> If you like.
OK, later -- gotta go perform now.
>> I thought that's what you were talking about in the thread where I >> brought them up! Odd limit, right? >
> No, a lattice for octave-equivalent ratios.
Yes, I meant that, with particular qualifications.
>> Did someone publish it before? It's currently not Gene's way, anyway. >
> How about Tenney?
No, I don't think he ever mentioned anything about comma-eating systems with tempered octaves or anything like that.
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9057 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 13:05:22

Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament

From: Graham Breed

Me:
>> I'm not sure if such a comma will always exist, Paul:
> Wow -- now that's an interesting question to consider. Me:
>> but provided it does >> it's the only one you need for TOPS. Paul:
> My intuition says it doesn't exist.
If it doesn't, the worst one you get should get you close to the optimum result. Me:
>> It doesn't even have to be made up >> of integers, so long as it's a linear combination of commas that >> are. Paul: > ???
81**2:80**2 or 6561:6400 has the double the size and double the complexity of 81:80. That means its size/complexity ratio is the same, and so tempering it out gives exactly the same result as tempering out 81:80. So why stop there? The cube of 81:80 also gives the same result. Any power will do, and it doesn't have to be an integer. The square root of 81:80 works. Even the pith root works (provided you express it as a monzo -- otherwise, it's an arbitrary number). That means instead of having two integers to define the resultant comma of a 7-limit linear temperament, you only need one real number. For example, the miracle kernel is (225:224)***i * (2401:2400)**j or i*[-5 2 2 -1> + j*[-5 -1 -2 4>. You can simplify that to x*[-5 2 2 -1> + (1-x)*[-5 -1 -2 4> so that you only have 1 variable instead of 2.
> There's something that seems strange about your octave-equivalent > method. The comma is supposed to be distributed uniformly (per unit > length, taxicabwise) among its constituent "rungs" in the lattice. > But it seems that 81:80 = 81:5 would involve 1, not 0, rungs of 5 in > the octave-equivalent lattice. But the octave-equivalent lattice > can't be embedded in euclidean space, so this completely falls apart??
81:5 involves three rungs of 3:1 and one rung of 3:5. For the 5-odd limit, these rungs are of equal length, and so that error has to be shared between them. That leaves 3:1 and 3:5 having an equal amount of temperament, and so 1:5 must be untempered. This is how Dave did it on his original web page: A method for optimally distributing any comma * [with cont.] (Wayb.) and we worked out at the time that it's correct. I didn't remember all that stuff about octave-specific optimization. It looks like you've cleared up the problems. But anyway, for the weighted, octave-equivalent case: The complexity of 81:80 is entirely determined by the 81, and not at all by the 80. The error can only be shared amongst those intervals that contribute to the complexity. I don't see how this can be drawn on a lattice, but it doesn't need to be. You can improve 3:1 at the expense of 3:5 and, because 3:5 has less weight, the worst weighted error for 5 odd-limit ratios goes down. However, the weighted error for 9:5 exceeds this, because it has the same complexity as 9:8 but is more poorly tuned. The true minimax is found by only tempering the 81. You certainly can embed an octave-equivalent lattice in Euclidian space. The triangular lattice is an example, but there's no reason to connect up the 5:3s if you're measuring Euclidian distances. In general, for each prime interval you need to assign a weight (the unit lattice distance) and also an angle. And you can probably do size/complexity tempering with such a measure, but it'd be more complex, and I haven't tried it. I'm guessing it wouldn't give the true weighted minimax, because for that to work it looks like the complexity of a comma has to be the sum of the complexities of its factors (one way or another). Graham ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: Yahoo groups: /tuning-math/ * [with cont.] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: tuning-math-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: Yahoo! Terms of Service * [with cont.] (Wayb.)
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9058 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2004 23:23:11

Subject: Reply to Reply to Gene

From: Gene Ward Smith

It looks like TOP is in business; your tuning for meantone being the
Tenney optimal one. I couldn't get code working using Maple's simplex
routines, so I did something by hand and that screwed up. It's back to
the drawing board for me, I want code which works for various limits
and temperament dimensions.



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________




------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
 Yahoo groups: /tuning-math/ * [with cont.] 

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 tuning-math-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
 Yahoo! Terms of Service * [with cont.]  (Wayb.)


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9059 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 01:55:34

Subject: Re: Reply to Reply to Gene

From: Gene Ward Smith

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:

> It looks like TOP is in business; your tuning for meantone being the > Tenney optimal one. I couldn't get code working using Maple's simplex > routines, so I did something by hand and that screwed up. It's back to > the drawing board for me, I want code which works for various limits > and temperament dimensions.
I've got something working in the 5-limit which gets around Maple's stupid business of giving only one minimax solution when there are more than one. It may amuse Dave to lesrn I used the 1003611167-et in the code so as to work strictly in rational arithmetic. It all seems to check with Paul's results. Now for the higher limits code.
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9060 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 13:49:56

Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament

From: Carl Lumma

>For an ET, just stretch so that the weighted errors of the most >upward-biased prime and most downward-biased prime are equal in >magnitude and opposite in sign. For 12-equal I take the mapping >[12 19 28] >divide (elementwise) by >[1 log2(3) log2(5)] >and get >[12.00000000000000 11.98766531785769 12.05894362605501] >Now we want to make the largest and smallest of these equidistant >from 12, so we divide [12 19 28] by their average >[12.05894362605501+11.98766531785769 ]/2 >giving >0.99806172487683 1.58026439772164 2.32881069137926 Awesome! >So Graham had the all the digits right, I just needed more precision. >Multiply by 12, and we get >1197.67406985219 1896.31727726597 2794.57282965511 >Here it's clear we're hitting the maximum, 3.557, with both 3 and 5. > > > 10 9 199.61 17.209 2.6508 > 9 8 199.61 4.2977 0.69655 > 6 5 299.42 16.223 3.3061 > 5 4 399.22 12.911 2.9873 > 4 3 499.03 0.98586 0.275 > 3 2 698.64 3.3118 1.2812 > 8 5 798.45 15.237 2.863 > 5 3 898.26 13.897 3.557 > 9 5 998.06 19.535 3.557 > 2 1 1197.7 2.3259 2.3259 > 9 4 1397.3 6.6236 1.2812 > 12 5 1497.1 18.549 3.1402 > 5 2 1596.9 10.585 3.1864 > 8 3 1696.7 1.3401 0.29227 > 3 1 1896.3 5.6377 3.557 > 16 5 1996.1 17.563 2.7781 > 10 3 2095.9 11.571 2.3581 > 18 5 2195.7 21.86 3.3674 > 15 4 2295.5 7.2733 1.2313 > 4 1 2395.3 4.6519 2.3259 > 9 2 2595 8.9495 2.1462 > 5 1 2794.6 8.2591 3.557 > 16 3 2894.4 3.666 0.6564 > 6 1 3094 7.9637 3.0808 > 25 4 3193.8 21.17 3.1864 > 20 3 3293.6 9.245 1.5651 > 15 2 3493.2 4.9473 1.0082 > 8 1 3593 6.9778 2.3259 > 25 3 3692.8 22.156 3.557 > 9 1 3792.6 11.275 3.557 > 10 1 3992.2 5.9332 1.7861 > 32 3 4092.1 5.9919 0.90994 > 12 1 4291.7 10.29 2.8702 > 25 2 4391.5 18.844 3.3389 > 27 2 4491.3 14.587 2.5348 > 15 1 4690.9 2.6214 0.67097 > 16 1 4790.7 9.3037 2.3259 > 18 1 4990.3 13.601 3.2618 > 20 1 5189.9 3.6073 0.83464 > 45 2 5389.5 0.6904 0.10635 > 24 1 5489.3 12.616 2.7515 > 25 1 5589.1 16.518 3.557 > 27 1 5689 16.913 3.557 > 30 1 5888.6 0.29546 0.060214 > 32 1 5988.4 11.63 2.3259 > 36 1 6188 15.927 3.0808 > 40 1 6387.6 1.2813 0.24076 > 45 1 6587.2 3.0163 0.54924 > 48 1 6687 14.941 2.6753 > 50 1 6786.8 14.192 2.5146 > 54 1 6886.6 19.239 3.3431 > 60 1 7086.2 2.0305 0.34375 > 64 1 7186 13.956 2.3259 > 72 1 7385.7 18.253 2.9584 > 75 1 7485.5 10.881 1.7468 > 80 1 7585.3 1.0446 0.16524 > 81 1 7585.3 22.551 3.557 > 90 1 7784.9 5.3423 0.82292 > 96 1 7884.7 17.267 2.6222 > 100 1 7984.5 11.866 1.7861
The alaska tunings are essentially circulating versions of this tuning. -Carl
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9061 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 02:03:53

Subject: Re: Comma(s) from 7-limit vectors

From: Gene Ward Smith

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul G Hjelmstad"
<paul.hjelmstad@u...> wrote:
> Hi, > > Could someone please show me the formula for extracting comma(s) from > 7-limit interval vectors? (I know how to do the cross-product to get > the comma from two 5-limit vectors.) Is this a wedge product? Does > it always generate two commas?
It sounds almost like you are asking how to extract commas from commas. I can show how to extract commas from wedgies. If l is a 7-limit wedgie, then what I call the subgroup commas are these: 2^l[4]*3^(-l[2])*5^l[1], 2^(-l[5])*3^l[3]*7^(-l[1]), 2^l[6]*5^(-l[3])*7^l[2], 3^l[6]*5^(-l[5])*7^l[4] Each of these uses only three of the possible four primes. These commas are not linearly independent nor are they usually the simplest available; Hermite reducing them is one way to simply this. Do you have something available which handles linear algebra?
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9062 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 21:55:45

Subject: Re: Temperament agreement

From: Gene Ward Smith

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:

> I wouldn't want to include any outside the 5-limit linear temperaments > having the following 18 vanishing commas. And I wouldn't mind leaving > off the last four.
Your wishes can be accomodated by setting bounds for size and epimericity. For the short list, we have size < 93 cents and epimericity < 0.62, the only five limit comma which would be added to the list if we used these bounds would be 1600000/1594323. Presumably you have no objection to that, as it appears on your long list.
> 81/80 > 32805/32768 > 2048/2025 > 15625/15552 > 128/125 > 3125/3072 > 250/243 > 78732/78125 > 20000/19683 > 25/24 > 648/625 > 135/128 > 256/243 > 393216/390625
The long list has size < 93 and epimericity < 0.68. If we were to use these bounds, we would add 6561/6250 and 20480/19683. The second of these, 20480/19683, has epimericity 0.6757, which is a sliver higher than the actual maximum epimericity of your long list, 0.6739, and so setting the bound at 0.675 would leave it off. What do you make of the 6561/6250 comma? If you had no objection to letting it on to an amended long list, you'd be in business there as well.
> 1600000/1594323 > 16875/16384 > 2109375/2097152 > 531441/524288 > > I'm afraid I disagree with Herman about including the temperament > where the apotome (2187/2048) vanishes.
I'd like to see Herman's list too.
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9063 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 02:47:36

Subject: Re: Temperament agreement

From: Gene Ward Smith

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> 
wrote:

> It looks like I'd be just as happy with straight lines on this chart.
Could you enlighten the rest of us and give a comma list of commas you want?
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9064 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:38:37

Subject: A peek at diaschisoid/ragatonic 6561/6250

From: Gene Ward Smith

I proposed the name ragitone for 6561/6250, since it is a ragisma shy
of the 21/20 minor septimal semitone. The diaschisoid name wouldn't
work for the Fokker blocks since we had too many otheer similar names.

You can get a good Ragitonic[12] from 5/59, but the top tuning might
be interesting: [1203.324, 1896.686, 2794.033]. I may try some
retuning experiments or see if I can get something interesting which
circulates.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9066 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:45:00

Subject: Re: Temperament agreement

From: Dave Keenan

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote: >
>> I wouldn't want to include any outside the 5-limit linear temperaments >> having the following 18 vanishing commas. And I wouldn't mind leaving >> off the last four. >
> Your wishes can be accomodated by setting bounds for size and > epimericity. For the short list, we have size < 93 cents and > epimericity < 0.62, the only five limit comma which would be added to > the list if we used these bounds would be 1600000/1594323. Presumably > you have no objection to that, as it appears on your long list.
I could live with it, but I'd rather not.
> The long list has size < 93 and epimericity < 0.68. If we were to use > these bounds, we would add 6561/6250 and 20480/19683. The second of > these, 20480/19683, has epimericity 0.6757, which is a sliver higher > than the actual maximum epimericity of your long list, 0.6739, and so > setting the bound at 0.675 would leave it off. What do you make of the > 6561/6250 comma? If you had no objection to letting it on to an > amended long list, you'd be in business there as well.
I'd rather not. What I don't like about both of these proposals is the "corners" in the cutoff line. I prefer straight or smoothly curved cutoffs.
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9067 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 03:59:03

Subject: Some seven limit TOP tunings

From: Gene Ward Smith

Comments?

meantone 

[1201.69852049457, 1899.26290957479, 2790.25755632091, 
3370.54832931857]

miracle 

[1200.63101379502, 1900.95486766285, 2784.84854520592, 3368.45175676244]

tertiathirds

[1203.18730860812, 1907.00676548748, 2780.90050601280, 
3359.87799995998]

porcupine 

[1196.90596030328, 1906.85893776044, 2779.12957616631, 
3367.71788629877]

dominant seventh 

[1195.22895145839, 1894.57688783731, 2797.39174551566, 3382.21993307575]

diminished

[1194.12845965338, 1892.64882959452, 2788.24517433455, 3385.30940416124]

pajara 

[1196.89342188995, 1901.90667876129, 2779.10046287214, 3377.54717381711]

orwell 

[1199.53265690430, 1900.45553028115, 2784.11702916383, 3371.48183436847]


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9068 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 04:01:14

Subject: Re: Comma(s) from 7-limit vectors

From: Gene Ward Smith

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul G Hjelmstad"
<paul.hjelmstad@u...> wrote:

>> Do you have something available which handles linear algebra? >
> Right now, just Excel. What do you recommend (without having to > spend too much?)
I recommend you tell me what Excel can do for now. Can it row reduce a matrix, for example? Can it find a nullspace?
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9069 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:11:12

Subject: Re: Some seven limit TOP tunings

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> 
wrote:

> pajara > > [1196.89342188995, 1901.90667876129, 2779.10046287214, 3377.54717381711]
numerator denominator temp.cents error error/comp. 10 9 172.18 10.223 1.5748 9 8 213.13 9.2231 1.4948 8 7 213.13 18.041 3.1066 7 6 278.75 11.876 2.2024 6 5 319.7 4.0584 0.82707 5 4 385.31 1.0001 0.2314 9 7 426.27 8.8179 1.4752 4 3 491.88 6.1648 1.7196 7 5 598.45 15.935 3.1066 10 7 598.45 19.041 3.1066 3 2 705.01 3.0583 1.1831 8 5 811.58 2.1065 0.39581 5 3 877.19 7.1649 1.8339 12 7 918.15 14.983 2.3439 7 4 983.76 14.934 3.1066 9 5 1024.7 7.1166 1.2958 2 1 1196.9 3.1066 3.1066 15 7 1303.5 15.983 2.3804 9 4 1410 6.1165 1.1831 7 3 1475.6 8.7696 1.9966 12 5 1516.6 0.95177 0.16113 5 2 1582.2 4.1067 1.2362 8 3 1688.8 9.2714 2.0221 14 5 1795.3 12.828 2.0929 3 1 1901.9 0.048322 0.030488 16 5 2008.5 5.2131 0.8246 10 3 2074.1 10.272 2.0933 7 2 2180.7 11.828 3.1066 18 5 2221.6 4.01 0.6177 15 4 2287.2 1.0484 0.17749 4 1 2393.8 6.2132 3.1066 21 5 2500.4 15.886 2.366 9 2 2606.9 3.0099 0.72182 14 3 2672.5 5.663 1.0502 5 1 2779.1 7.2133 3.1066 21 4 2885.7 14.886 2.3287 16 3 2885.7 12.378 2.2163 6 1 3098.8 3.1549 1.2205 25 4 3164.4 8.2133 1.2362 20 3 3271 13.378 2.2648 7 1 3377.5 8.7213 3.1066 15 2 3484.1 4.155 0.84677 8 1 3590.7 9.3197 3.1066 25 3 3656.3 14.378 2.3083 9 1 3803.8 0.096644 0.030488 28 3 3869.4 2.5564 0.39992 10 1 3976 10.32 3.1066 21 2 4082.6 11.78 2.1845 32 3 4082.6 15.485 2.3515 35 3 4254.7 1.5563 0.2318 12 1 4295.7 6.2615 1.7466 25 2 4361.3 11.32 2.0057 27 2 4508.8 2.9616 0.51463 14 1 4574.4 5.6147 1.4747 15 1 4681 7.2616 1.8587 16 1 4787.6 12.426 3.1066 35 2 4959.8 4.6146 0.75288 18 1 5000.7 3.2032 0.76817 20 1 5172.9 13.426 3.1066 21 1 5279.5 8.6729 1.9746 45 2 5386 4.2033 0.64748 24 1 5492.6 9.3681 2.0432 49 2 5558.2 20.549 3.1066 25 1 5558.2 14.427 3.1066 27 1 5705.7 0.14497 0.030488 28 1 5771.3 2.5081 0.52172 30 1 5877.9 10.368 2.113 32 1 5984.5 15.533 3.1066 35 1 6156.6 1.508 0.294 36 1 6197.6 6.3098 1.2205 40 1 6369.8 16.533 3.1066 42 1 6476.3 5.5664 1.0323 45 1 6582.9 7.3099 1.331 48 1 6689.5 12.475 2.2336 49 1 6755.1 17.443 3.1066 50 1 6755.1 17.533 3.1066 54 1 6902.6 3.2515 0.56501 56 1 6968.2 0.59847 0.10305 60 1 7074.8 13.475 2.2812 63 1 7181.4 8.6246 1.4429 64 1 7181.4 18.639 3.1066 70 1 7353.5 1.5986 0.26081 72 1 7394.5 9.4164 1.5262 75 1 7460.1 14.475 2.3238 80 1 7566.7 19.64 3.1066 81 1 7607.6 0.19329 0.030488 84 1 7673.2 2.4598 0.3848 90 1 7779.8 10.416 1.6045 96 1 7886.4 15.581 2.3662 98 1 7952 14.336 2.1673 100 1 7952 20.64 3.1066 105 1 8058.6 1.4597 0.2174 3.1066 looks like the max . . . compare with 22-equal: numerator denominator temp.cents error error/comp. 10 9 163.64 18.767 2.8909 9 8 218.18 14.272 2.3131 8 7 218.18 12.992 2.2372 7 6 272.73 5.8564 1.0861 6 5 327.27 11.631 2.3704 5 4 381.82 4.4955 1.0402 9 7 436.36 1.2795 0.21407 4 3 490.91 7.1359 1.9905 7 5 600 17.488 3.4094 10 7 600 17.488 2.8532 3 2 709.09 7.1359 2.7605 8 5 818.18 4.4955 0.84472 5 3 872.73 11.631 2.9772 12 7 927.27 5.8564 0.91616 7 4 981.82 12.992 2.7026 9 5 1036.4 18.767 3.4173 2 1 1200 0 0 15 7 1309.1 10.352 1.5418 9 4 1418.2 14.272 2.7605 7 3 1472.7 5.8564 1.3333 12 5 1527.3 11.631 1.9691 5 2 1581.8 4.4955 1.3533 8 3 1690.9 7.1359 1.5564 14 5 1800 17.488 2.8532 3 1 1909.1 7.1359 4.5023 16 5 2018.2 4.4955 0.7111 10 3 2072.7 11.631 2.3704 7 2 2181.8 12.992 3.4124 18 5 2236.4 18.767 2.8909 15 4 2290.9 2.6404 0.447 4 1 2400 0 0 21 5 2509.1 24.624 3.6674 9 2 2618.2 14.272 3.4226 14 3 2672.7 5.8564 1.0861 5 1 2781.8 4.4955 1.9361 21 4 2890.9 20.128 3.1488 16 3 2890.9 7.1359 1.2777 6 1 3109.1 7.1359 2.7605 25 4 3163.6 8.9911 1.3533 20 3 3272.7 11.631 1.9691 7 1 3381.8 12.992 4.6279 15 2 3490.9 2.6404 0.5381 8 1 3600 0 0 25 3 3654.5 16.127 2.5891 9 1 3818.2 14.272 4.5023 28 3 3872.7 5.8564 0.91616 10 1 3981.8 4.4955 1.3533 21 2 4090.9 20.128 3.7328 32 3 4090.9 7.1359 1.0837 35 3 4254.5 1.3608 0.20268 12 1 4309.1 7.1359 1.9905 25 2 4363.6 8.9911 1.5931 27 2 4527.3 21.408 3.7199 14 1 4581.8 12.992 3.4124 15 1 4690.9 2.6404 0.67583 16 1 4800 0 0 35 2 4963.6 8.4967 1.3863 18 1 5018.2 14.272 3.4226 20 1 5181.8 4.4955 1.0402 21 1 5290.9 20.128 4.5826 45 2 5400 9.7763 1.5059 24 1 5509.1 7.1359 1.5564 49 2 5563.6 25.985 3.9283 25 1 5563.6 8.9911 1.9361 27 1 5727.3 21.408 4.5023 28 1 5781.8 12.992 2.7026 30 1 5890.9 2.6404 0.5381 32 1 6000 0 0 35 1 6163.6 8.4967 1.6565 36 1 6218.2 14.272 2.7605 40 1 6381.8 4.4955 0.84472 42 1 6490.9 20.128 3.7328 45 1 6600 9.7763 1.7801 48 1 6709.1 7.1359 1.2777 49 1 6763.6 25.985 4.6279 50 1 6763.6 8.9911 1.5931 54 1 6927.3 21.408 3.7199 56 1 6981.8 12.992 2.2372 60 1 7090.9 2.6404 0.447 63 1 7200 27.264 4.5613 64 1 7200 0 0 70 1 7363.6 8.4967 1.3863 72 1 7418.2 14.272 2.3131 75 1 7472.7 1.8552 0.29783 80 1 7581.8 4.4955 0.7111 81 1 7636.4 28.544 4.5023 84 1 7690.9 20.128 3.1488 90 1 7800 9.7763 1.5059 96 1 7909.1 7.1359 1.0837 98 1 7963.6 25.985 3.9283 100 1 7963.6 8.9911 1.3533 105 1 8072.7 15.633 2.3283
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9070 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:23:33

Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament

From: Paul Erlich

Gene, what do you get for the top system with the commas of 12-equal 
(in other words, some stretching or squashing of 12-equal)? Graham 
seems to gave gotten pretty close below, but no cigar . . .

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> 
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:
>> Paul Erlich wrote: >>
>>> Wow. How did you find that? >>
>> Briefly (use the Reply thing so that indentation works), > >> 22876792454961:19073486328125 >
> So it was a finite search? How do you know you won't keep finding > worse and worse examples if you go farther out? You might be > approaching a limit, but how do you know you'll ever reach it? >
>>>> TOPping it gives a narrow octave of 0.99806 2:1 octaves. >>> >>>
>>> Shall I proceed to calculate Tenney-weighted errors for all > (well, a
>>> bunch of) intervals? I hope you're onto something! >>
>> If you like. >
> OK, later -- gotta go perform now.
I'm back . . . Looks like you might be off in the last digit or two (so maybe there is no worst comma?), but a lot of the Tenney-weighted errors are in the 3.5549 - 3.5591 range, so you're probably pretty close . . . 10 9 199.61 17.208 2.6508 9 8 199.61 4.298 0.69661 6 5 299.42 16.223 3.3062 5 4 399.22 12.91 2.9872 4 3 499.03 0.985 0.27476 3 2 698.64 3.313 1.2816 8 5 798.45 15.238 2.8633 5 3 898.25 13.895 3.5566 9 5 998.06 19.536 3.5573 2 1 1197.7 2.328 2.328 9 4 1397.3 6.626 1.2816 12 5 1497.1 18.551 3.1406 5 2 1596.9 10.582 3.1856 8 3 1696.7 1.343 0.29291 3 1 1896.3 5.641 3.5591 16 5 1996.1 17.566 2.7786 10 3 2095.9 11.567 2.3574 18 5 2195.7 21.864 3.368 15 4 2295.5 7.2693 1.2306 4 1 2395.3 4.656 2.328 9 2 2595 8.954 2.1473 5 1 2794.6 8.2543 3.5549 16 3 2894.4 3.671 0.6573 6 1 3094 7.969 3.0828 25 4 3193.8 21.165 3.1856 20 3 3293.6 9.2393 1.5642 15 2 3493.2 4.9413 1.007 8 1 3593 6.984 2.328 25 3 3692.8 22.15 3.556 9 1 3792.6 11.282 3.5591 10 1 3992.2 5.9263 1.784 32 3 4092 5.999 0.91101 12 1 4291.7 10.297 2.8723 25 2 4391.5 18.837 3.3375 27 2 4491.3 14.595 2.5361 15 1 4690.9 2.6133 0.66889 16 1 4790.7 9.312 2.328 18 1 4990.3 13.61 3.2638 20 1 5189.9 3.5983 0.83257 45 2 5389.5 0.69972 0.10778 24 1 5489.3 12.625 2.7536 25 1 5589.1 16.509 3.5549 27 1 5688.9 16.923 3.5591 30 1 5888.6 0.28529 0.05814 32 1 5988.4 11.64 2.328 36 1 6188 15.938 3.0828 40 1 6387.6 1.2703 0.23869 45 1 6587.2 3.0277 0.55131 48 1 6687 14.953 2.6774 50 1 6786.8 14.181 2.5126 54 1 6886.6 19.251 3.3452 60 1 7086.2 2.0427 0.34582 64 1 7186 13.968 2.328 72 1 7385.6 18.266 2.9605 75 1 7485.4 10.868 1.7447 80 1 7585.3 1.0577 0.16731 81 1 7585.3 22.564 3.5591 90 1 7784.9 5.3557 0.82499 96 1 7884.7 17.281 2.6243 100 1 7984.5 11.853 1.784
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9071 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:37:33

Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament

From: Gene Ward Smith

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> 
wrote:
> Gene, what do you get for the top system with the commas of 12- equal > (in other words, some stretching or squashing of 12-equal)?
I don't know, but I plan on investigating TOP tunings of equal and planar temperaments as well as linear ones. Presumably one gets a squashing. The octaves of Dom7 are pretty short.
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9072 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 18:41:42

Subject: Re: 5-limit comma list

From: Carl Lumma

>These are all the 5-limit commas with size less than 100 cents and >epimericity less than 2/3; it looks reasonable to me. > >135/128 Pelogic >256/243 Blackwood >6561/6250 Ragitonic/Diaschizmoid >25/24 Dicot >648/625 Diminished >16875/16384 Negri >250/243 Porcupine >128/125 Augmented >3125/3072 Magic >20000/19683 Tetracot >81/80 Meantone >2048/2025 Diaschismic >78732/78125 Hemisixths >393216/390625 Wuerschmidt >2109375/2097152 Orwell/Semicomma >15625/15552 Kleismic >1600000/1594323 Amity >32805/32768 Schismic
This looks good to me. -Carl
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9073 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 08:48:09

Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> 
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> > wrote:
>> Gene, what do you get for the top system with the commas of 12- > equal
>> (in other words, some stretching or squashing of 12-equal)? >
> I don't know, but I plan on investigating TOP tunings of equal and > planar temperaments as well as linear ones. Presumably one gets a > squashing. The octaves of Dom7 are pretty short.
right, right . . . just wanted to do a cross-check between you and graham . . . so what's the formula for top linear in 7-limit (for pajara and/or in general)?
top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 9074 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 00:53:19

Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament

From: Carl Lumma

>I don't know, but I plan on investigating TOP tunings of equal and >planar temperaments as well as linear ones. Presumably one gets a >squashing. The octaves of Dom7 are pretty short.
You have a way of combining commas, then? -Carl
top of page bottom of page up

Previous Next

9000 9050 9100 9150 9200 9250 9300 9350 9400 9450 9500 9550 9600 9650 9700 9750 9800 9850 9900 9950

9050 - 9075 -

top of page