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).

Previous Next

10000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400 10450 10500 10550 10600 10650 10700 10750 10800 10850 10900 10950

10150 - 10175 -

Message: 10151 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:33:20

Subject: Re: 23 "pro-moated" 7-limit linear temps

From: Paul Erlich

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

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

>>> It's precisely as complex in terms of the chord relationships
>>> involved, so long as you stay below the 9-limit.
>> 

>> Why do you say this? Is this some mathematical result, or your 
>> subjective feeling? My ears certainly don't seem to agree.
> 

> It's a non-subjective musical result. The number of intervals
> involved,


Not the only valid measure of complexity.


> or the number of chord changes for chords sharing a note, or
> sharing two notes, is going to be exactly the same.
> This is why you
> can map them 1-1. Getting to a 3/2 from a 1 is two steps for chords
> sharing two notes, and one step for chords sharing a note (since 
they
> share a 3/2.) Exactly the same is true of any other 7-limit
> consonance, such as 7/4.


How do you know that? What if your chords are 9-limit chords (either 
complete or saturated)?


> You go from one major tetrad to another in
> two steps of chords sharing an interval, no more, no less.


Why should I only care about major tetrads?


>>>>> Past a certain point the equivalencies aren't going to make
>>>>> any differences to you, and there is another sort of 
complexity 
>>>> bound

>>>>> to think about.
>>>> 

>>>> I thought this was the only kind. Can you elaborate?
>>> 

>>> If |a b c d> is a 7-limit monzo, the symmetrical lattice norm
>>> (seminorm, if we are including 2) is
>>> sqrt(b^2 + c^2 + d^2 + bc + bd + cd), and this may be viewed as 
its
>>> complexity in terms of harmonic relationships of 7-limit 
chords. How
>>> many consonant intervalsteps at minimum are needed to get there 
is
>>> another and related measure.
>> 

>> I think the Tenney lattice is pretty ideal for this, because 
>> progressing by simpler consonances is more comprehensible and 
thus 
>> allows for longer chord progressions with the same subjective 
>> complexity.
> 

> The Tenney lattice is no good for this, since I am assuming octave
> equivalence.


Then something like the Kees lattice should be used, but this 
assumption would add a new chapter to our paper that would probably 
make it too long.


> The octave-class Tenney lattice could be argued for,


The one that makes 15:8 equally complex as 5:3? Never.


> but
> chords sharing notes or intervals seems far more basic to me so far 
>as
> chords go.


In C major, the progression between C major and D minor triads 
doesn't use any shared notes. Is that a problem?


> We can start from chords and then get back to the notes.


I don't want to assume any particular chord structures; that would 
make this whole enterprise far less general and might doom it to 
being nothing more than an academic curiosity.

Message: 10152 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:07:33

Subject: Re: 23 "pro-moated" 7-limit linear temps

From: Gene Ward Smith

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

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

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

>>> I think the regular plot will be easier to explain than the log-
> log 
>>> plot.
>> 

>> Are you going to actually explain it, or just sweep that under the
>> rug?
> 

> Yes, excuse me for the brutal honesty, but my track record for 
> successfully explaining things to people is just a bit better than 
> yours.


I rely on you for that. Can you possibly believe my track record for
working out the logic of a proposal is not a bad one, and that if I am
saying something it might be worth thinking about?

Message: 10153 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:48:20

Subject: Re: !

From: Carl Lumma

>>> >nd what about the position of the origin on the 
>>> *complexity* axis??
>> 

>> I already answered that.
>

>Where? I didn't see anything on that, but I could have misunderstood 
>something.


Sorry; you use 1 cent and 1 note as zeros.


>>> P.S. The relative scaling of the two axes is completely arbitrary, 
>> 

>> Howso?  They're both base2 logs of fixed units.
>

>Actually, the vertical axis isn't base anything, since it's a ratio 
>of logs.


That cents are log seems irrelevant.  They're fundamental units!


>> You mean c is
>> arbitrary in y = x + c?
>

>Not what I meant, but this is the equation of a line, not a circle.


Yes, I know.  But I wasn't trying to give a circle (IIRC that form
is like x**2 + y**2 something something), or a line, but the
intersection point of the axes, which is what I thought you meant by
relative scaling.  That means I only meant the above to apply when
either x or y is zero, I think.  Anyway, I don't think changing the
intersection point would turn a circle into an elipse, so you must
have meant something else.

If a circle is just so unsatisfactory, please instead consider my
suggestion to be that we equally penalize temperaments for trading
too much of their error for comp., or too much of their comp for
error.

Incidentally, I don't see the point of a moat vs. a circle, since
the moat's 'hole' is apparently empty on your charts -- but I
guess the moat is only meant for linear-linear, or?

-Carl

Message: 10154 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:39:55

Subject: Re: acceptace regions

From: Paul Erlich

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

> We might try in analyzing or plotting 7-limit linear temperaments a 
> transformation like this:
> 
> u = 4 - ln(complexity) - ln(error)
> v = 12 - 4 ln(complexity) - ln(error)
> 
> We can obtain a fine list simply by taking everything in the first 
> quadrant and leaving the rest. Morover, while the cornet here is 
not 
> sharp, if we want to smooth it we can easily accomodate such a 
desire 
> by taking everything above a hyperpola uv =  constant in the first 
> quadrant--in other words, use uv as a goodness function, and insist 
> on a goodness higher than zero.
> 
> Think the resulting list is too small? Try moving the origin 
> elsewhere, by setting
> 
> u' = A - ln(complexity) - ln(error)
> v' = B - 4 ln(complexity) - ln(error)
> 
> Still unhappy? I think the slopes of -1 and -4 I use work well, but 
> you could try changing slopes *and* origins in order to better get 
> what you think is a moat, or are willing to claim is one.
> 
> I think a uv plot of 7-limit linears would be interesting. I'd also 
> like some kind of feedback, so I don't get the feeling I am talking 
> to myself here.


It sounds interesting, but what is the basic idea, and where are 
these numbers and parameters coming from?

Message: 10155 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:35:53

Subject: Re: 23 "pro-moated" 7-limit linear temps

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

>>> I suggest a rectangle which bounds complexity and error, not
>>> complexity alone.
>>> 
>>> In the circle suggestion I suggest a circle plus a complexity 
bound
>>> is sufficient.
>> 

>> Can you give an example of the latter?
> 

> Fix the origin at 1 cent and 1 note,


Complexity is only measured in "notes" in the ET cases, and even then 
there's arbitrariness to it (notes per octave? tritave?)


> and the complexity < whatever
> you want.  100 notes?  20 notes?


Why would you need a complexity bound in addition to the circle? The 
circle, being finite, would only extend to a certain maximum 
complexity anyway . . .

Message: 10156 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:50:31

Subject: Re: 23 "pro-moated" 7-limit linear temps

From: Carl Lumma

>It wouldn't be the first time we both thought we understood the
>meaning of a term and eventually discovered we were poles apart. (Damn
>those Antarctic stories :-)


I wasn't familiar with the Oscar Wilde routine, by the way.
That's hilarious.  Thanks for keeping a sense of humor.


>>> Why can't you do scale-building stuff without them?
>> 

>> I don't know that it can't, but they're certainly fertile for
>> scale-building.
>

>Carl, "necessary" means you can't do without them. Please be careful
>about your use of hyperbole


Do *what* without them?  Build any decent scale (the above sense)?
Or run any kind of decent scale-building program (the sense in which
I said "necessary")?

-Carl

Message: 10157 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:44:48

Subject: Re: Rhombic dodecahedron scale

From: Paul Erlich

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

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

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

>>> Here is a scale which arose when I was considering adding to 
the 
>> seven

>>> limit lattices web page. A Voronoi cell for a lattice is every 
> point

>>> at least as close (closer, for an interior point) to a paricular
>>> vertex than to any other vertex. The Voronoi cells for the
>>> face-centered cubic
>>> lattice of 7-limit intervals is the rhombic dodecahedron with 
the 
> 14

>>> verticies (+-1 0 0), (0 +-1 0), (0 0 +-1), (+-1/2 +-1/2 +-1/2). 
>> These

>>> fill the whole space, like a bee's honeycomb. The Delaunay 
celles 
>> of a

>>> lattice are the convex hulls of the lattice points closest to a
>>> Voronoi cell vertex; in this case we get tetrahedra and 
octahedra,
>>> which are the holes of the lattice, and are tetrads or 
hexanies. 
> The

>>> six (+-1 0 0) verticies of the Voronoi cell correspond to six
>>> hexanies, and the 
>>> eight others to eight tetrads. If we put all of these together, 
we
>>> obtain the following scale of 19 notes, all of whose intervals 
are
>>> superparticular ratios:
>>> 

>> I know I'm lagging behind, but I need to ask where the remaining 
5 
>> notes come from (14 + 5). Thanks
> 

> Okay -heres what I know for sure. The 19 tones include 
3,5,7,15,21,35 
> hexany, all divided by 5 and 7. This makes 11 tones, leaving 8. I 
> can't find any pattern to the 8 remaining however. (Are these the 8 
> tetrads?). I also discovered that the 19 tones are every combination
> of -1, 0 and 1 except for (1,1,1) (-1,-1,-1) triples and every 
double
> of 1,1,0 and -1,-1,0. I guess what I am saying is that I understand
> hexanies but don't know what makes a tetrad. Thanks
> 
> Paul


There are two types of tetrad. 1:3:5:7 is one, and 105:35:21:15 = 1/
(1:3:5:7) is the other.

Message: 10158 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:37:06

Subject: Re: 23 "pro-moated" 7-limit linear temps

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

>>> You can look at meantone as something which gives nice triads, 
as a
>>> superior system because it has fifths for generators, as a nice 
deal
>>> because of a low badness figure. Or, you can say, wow, it has 
81/80,
>>> 126/125 and 225/224 all in the kernel, and look what that 
implies.
>> 

>> Having 81/80 in the kernel implies you can harmonize a diatonic 
scale 
>> all the way through in consonant thirds. Similar commas have 
similar 
>> implications of the kind Carl always seemed to care about.
> 

> Don't you mean 25:24?


No, 81;80. 25;24 in the kernel doesn't give you either a diatonic 
scale or 'consonant thirds'.

Message: 10159 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:11:38

Subject: Re: The same page

From: Gene Ward Smith

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

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

>>>> In 4D (e.g., 7-limit), for linear temperaments the bival is dual 
> to 

>>>> the bimonzo, and both are referred to as the "wedgie" (though 
> Gene 

>>>> uses the bival form).
>> 

>> Both are referred to as the "wedgie" by whom?
> 

> For example, in the original post to Paul Hj. explaining Pascal's 
> triangle. Clearly there, when there's only one val involved, the 
> wedgie can only be a multimonzo, not a multival.


With one val, the wedgie by definition is that val. The only special
case I know is 5-limit linear temperaments, where using the comma as a
wedgie seems a better plan than sticking with the definition.

Message: 10160 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:49:11

Subject: Re: loglog!

From: Carl Lumma

>>>> >or ETs at least.  Choose a
>>>> bound according to sensibilities in the 5-limit, round it
>>>> to the nearest ten, and use it for all limits.
>>> 

>>> The complexity measures cannot be compared across different 
>>> dimensionalities, any more than lengths can be compared with areas 
>>> can be compared with volumes.
>> 

>> Not if it's number of notes, I guess.
>

>What's number of notes??

Complexity units.


>> I've suggested in the
>> past adjusting for it, crudely, by dividing by pi(lim).
>

>Huh? What's that?


If we're counting dyads, I suppose higher limits ought to do
better with constant notes.  If we're counting complete chords,
they ought to do worse.  Yes/no?

-Carl

Message: 10161 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:38:19

Subject: Re: The same page

From: Paul Erlich

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

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

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

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

>>>> Why not admit both versions of the wedgie in all instances? 
>>> 

>>> The wedgie then no longer corresponds 1-1 with temperaments, as 
>> there

>>> are two of them.
>> 

>> So the correspondence is 1-1-1. Why is that a problem?
> 

> If I say "here is a wedgie for a 7-limit temperament" you no longer
> know which temperament.


Yes you do, since we're using bra-ket notation . . .

Message: 10162 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 00:13:28

Subject: Re: 23 "pro-moated" 7-limit linear temps

From: Gene Ward Smith

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


> False, and I don't appreciate the sarcastic tone of this either.


I didn't appreciate learning I write incoherent music.

Message: 10163 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:53:47

Subject: Re: 23 "pro-moated" 7-limit linear temps

From: Carl Lumma

>>>> >ssuming a system is never exhausted, how close do you think 
>>>> we've come to where schismic, meantone, dominant 7ths,
>>>> augmented, and diminshed are today with any other system?
>>> 

>>> We don't care, since we're including *all* the systems with error
>>> and complexity no worse than *any* of these systems, as well as
>>> miracle. And that's quite a few!
>> 

>> But you can still make the same kind of error.
>> 
>> -Carl
>
>How so?


1. The process of expansion into temperament space might not be
finished in the 5-limit.

2. If we don't know anything about 7-limit music, listing all
temperaments at least as "good" (never mind how we determine that) as
the ones used to date in 5-limit music might not mean anything.

-Carl

Message: 10164 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:52:23

Subject: Re: The same page

From: Carl Lumma

>Is this a start?

Yes, great!!

> ~= will mean "equal when one side is complemented".
>
>2 primes:
>
><val] ~= [monzo>
>
>3 primes:
>
>()ET:
>[monzo> /\ [monzo> ~= <val]
>()LT:
>[monzo> ~= <val] /\ <val]
>
>4 primes:
>
>()ET:
>[monzo> /\ [monzo> /\ [monzo> ~= <val]
>()LT:
>[monzo> /\ [monzo> ~= <val] /\ <val]
>()PT:
>[monzo> ~= <val} /\ <val] /\ <val]
>
>Hopefully the pattern is clear.


I'm missing wedgies here.  And maps.  And dual/complement.

-Carl

Message: 10166 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 12:54:43

Subject: Re: 23 "pro-moated" 7-limit linear temps

From: Carl Lumma

>> >'m not.
>

>Then why are you suddenly silent on all this?


Huh?  I've been posting at a record rate.


>> It is well known that Dave, for example, is far more
>> micro-biased than I! 
>
>?


What's your question?

-Carl

Message: 10167 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:46:02

Subject: lost post

From: Paul Erlich

I was posting something, the connection died, don't know what it 
was . . . :(

Message: 10169 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 21:54:37

Subject: Re: 23 "pro-moated" 7-limit linear temps

From: Paul Erlich

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

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

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

>>> I rely on you for that. Can you possibly believe my track 
record for
>>> working out the logic of a proposal is not a bad one, and that 
if I 
>> am

>>> saying something it might be worth thinking about?
>> 

>> I've been thinking about it for years, and mostly supporting it. 
It's 
>> just that I think Dave and Graham should both be in on this, and 
we 
>> were going to lose Dave entirely if we didn't at least try to 
address 
>> his objections. I'm hoping this process will continue, whenever 
Dave 
>> gets back.
> 

> Hey Paul, I assume your recent change of mind on this stuff wasn't
> just so you wouldn't "lose" me. I certainly never made any threats 
of
> that kind.


It seemed like you were saying something like this (though not 
a "threat") on the tuning list. I hate rehashing, but I could find 
the posts in question . . . But I think it would be valuable if the 
four of us could put something together, rather than splintering off 
and then possibly having fights about priority or whatnot. So a 
little politics didn't seem out of order. Not to mention I think a 
lot more could be said for your case, particularly by the most 
active "other", namely Carl.

Message: 10170 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:55:46

Subject: Re: The same page

From: Gene Ward Smith

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


> Why not admit both versions of the wedgie in all instances? 


The wedgie then no longer corresponds 1-1 with temperaments, as there
are two of them.




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.)

Message: 10171 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 22:14:18

Subject: 22 7-limit temperaments in the upper uv quadrant

From: Gene Ward Smith

I found 22 of these; this is probably all that exist. I list the
temperament and the product uv. The list can be used as is, but if
Dave wants rounded corners, we could fix a value for uv and only
accept temperaments above it. Paul may dislike the unboundedness of
the upper quadrant; we can fix that by transforming coordinates back
to complexity and error. We have

C = exp((8 + u - v)/3)

E = exp((4 - 4u - v)/3)

If we use the cuttoff hyperbola v = k/u, then we may plot that in the
C-E plane in parametric form as

C(u) = exp((8 + u - k/u))
E(u) = exp((4 - 4u - k/u))

This gives a curved line in an unbounded region, where zero error and
complexity (though not any temperaments exhibiting them) may be found.

Other objections might be that you don't find your favorite
temperament, or you do find one you can't stand. I'm not too impressed
by the second, but for either, or if you think you see a "moat"
somewhere, you have a 5-parameter family to play with--two for the
origin, two for the slopes of the coordinate axes, and one for the
constant k in the hyperbola. That should accomodate anyone's desire to
fiddle, or even cook the books.

Are there any remaining objections I have not answered above?

Ennealimmal
1 <18, 27, 18, 1, -22, -34| <3.629230331, .575465612| 2.088497

Meantone
2 <1, 4, 10, 4, 13, 12| <1.005097996, 1.609665600| 1.617872

Magic
3 <5, 1, 12, -10, 5, 25| <1.012524503, .7830372729| .792844

Pajara
4 <2, -4, -4, -11, -12, 2| <.524469574, 1.498444023| .785888

Dominant seventh
5 <1, 4, -2, 4, -6, -16| <.363511386, 2.141744135| .778548

Semisixths
6 <7, 9, 13, -2, 1, 5| <.8521893702, .8383344292| .714420

Tripletone
7 <3, 0, -6, -7, -18, -14| <.426316706, .940456192| .400932

Blackwood
8 <0, 5, 0, 8, 0, -14| <.152491081, 2.548674345| .388650

Miracle
9 <6, -7, -2, -25, -20, 15| <1.411065061, .2629785497| .371080

Diminished
10 <4, 4, 4, -3, -5, -2| <.160875338, 1.953852436| .314327

Negri
11 <4, -3, 2, -14, -8, 13| <.345586529, .859876933| .297162

Hemifourths
12 <2, 8, 1, 8, -4, -20| <.283811920, 1.034875923| .293710

Kleismic
13 <6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7| <.322424097, .767227201| .247373

Superpythagorean
14 <1, 9, -2, 12, -6, -30| <.4535440254, .4454275914| .202021

Injera
15 <2, 8, 8, 8, 7, -4| <.245867248, .811824633| .199601

Augmented
16 <3, 0, 6, -7, 1, 14| <.113185821, 1.762756409| .199519

"Number 43" {50/49, 245/243} Supermajor?
17 <6, 10, 10, 2, -1, -5| <.287044794, .548744901| .157514

"Number 55" {81/80, 128/125} Duodecatonic?
18 <0, 0, 12, 0, 19, 28| <.178510293, .520800106| .092968

Orwell
19 <7, -3, 8, -21, -7, 27| <1.060730636, .7657743908e-1| .081228

Schismic
20 <1, -8, -14, -15, -25, -10| <1.080908962, .5026039173e-1| .054327

Flattone
21 <1, 4, -9, 4, -17, -32| <.3364294610, .1379787620| .046420

Porcupine
22 <3, 5, -6, 1, -18, -28| <.176167209, .93101647e-1| .016401



 



________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.)

Message: 10172 - Contents - Hide Contents

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 03:10:30

Subject: Re: 23 "pro-moated" 7-limit linear temps

From: Dave Keenan

--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

>>>> Humans seem to find a particular region of complexity and error
>>>> attractive and have a certain approximate function relating
error and
>>>> complexity to usefulness. Extra-terrestrial music-makers (or
humpback
>>>> whales) may find completely different regions attractive.
>>> 

>>> This seems to be the key statement of this thread.  I don't think
>>> this has been established.  If it had, I'd be all for it.  But it
>>> seems instead that whenever you cut out temperament T, somebody
>>> could come along and do something with T that would make you wish
>>> you hadn't have cut it.  Therefore it seems logical to use something
>>> that allows a comparison of temperaments in any range (like logflat).
>> 

>> So Carl. You  really think it's possible that some human musician
>> could find the temperament where 3/2 vanishes to be a useful
>> approximation of 5-limit JI (but hey at least the complexity is
>> 0.001)?  And likewise for some temperament where the number of
>> generators to each prime is around a google (but hey at least the
>> error is 10^-99 cents)?
> 

> This is a false dilemma.  The size of this thread shows how hard
> it is to agree on the cutoffs.


Well yeah but we're probably within a factor of 2 of agreeing. Another
species could disagree with us by orders of magnitude.

So you do want cutoffs on error and complexity? But cutoffs utterly
violate log-flat badness in the regions outside of them.


> Can you name the temperaments that fell outside of the top 20 on
> Gene's 114 list?

Yes.


Number 21 {21/20, 28/27}


[1, 4, 3, 4, 2, -4] [[1, 2, 4, 4], [0, -1, -4, -3]]
TOP tuning [1214.253642, 1919.106053, 2819.409644, 3328.810876]
TOP generators [1214.253642, 509.4012304]
bad: 42.300772 comp: 1.722706 err: 14.253642



Number 22 Injera


[2, 8, 8, 8, 7, -4] [[2, 3, 4, 5], [0, 1, 4, 4]]
TOP tuning [1201.777814, 1896.276546, 2777.994928, 3378.883835]
TOP generators [600.8889070, 93.60982493]
bad: 42.529834 comp: 3.445412 err: 3.582707



Number 23 Dicot


[2, 1, 6, -3, 4, 11] [[1, 1, 2, 1], [0, 2, 1, 6]]
TOP tuning [1204.048158, 1916.847810, 2764.496143, 3342.447113]
TOP generators [1204.048159, 356.3998255]
bad: 42.920570 comp: 2.137243 err: 9.396316



Number 24 Hemifourths


[2, 8, 1, 8, -4, -20] [[1, 2, 4, 3], [0, -2, -8, -1]]
TOP tuning [1203.668842, 1902.376967, 2794.832500, 3358.526166]
TOP generators [1203.668841, 252.4803582]
bad: 43.552336 comp: 3.445412 err: 3.668842



Number 25 Waage? Compton? Duodecimal?


[0, 12, 24, 19, 38, 22] [[12, 19, 28, 34], [0, 0, -1, -2]]
TOP tuning [1200.617051, 1900.976998, 2785.844725, 3370.558188]
TOP generators [100.0514209, 16.55882096]
bad: 45.097159 comp: 8.548972 err: .617051



Number 26 Wizard


[12, -2, 20, -31, -2, 52] [[2, 1, 5, 2], [0, 6, -1, 10]]
TOP tuning [1200.639571, 1900.941305, 2784.828674, 3368.342104]
TOP generators [600.3197857, 216.7702531]
bad: 45.381303 comp: 8.423526 err: .639571



Number 27 Kleismic


[6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7] [[1, 0, 1, 2], [0, 6, 5, 3]]
TOP tuning [1203.187308, 1907.006766, 2792.359613, 3359.878000]
TOP generators [1203.187309, 317.8344609]
bad: 45.676063 comp: 3.785579 err: 3.187309



Number 28 Negri


[4, -3, 2, -14, -8, 13] [[1, 2, 2, 3], [0, -4, 3, -2]]
TOP tuning [1203.187308, 1907.006766, 2780.900506, 3359.878000]
TOP generators [1203.187309, 124.8419629]
bad: 46.125886 comp: 3.804173 err: 3.187309



Number 29 Nonkleismic


[10, 9, 7, -9, -17, -9] [[1, -1, 0, 1], [0, 10, 9, 7]]
TOP tuning [1198.828458, 1900.098151, 2789.033948, 3368.077085]
TOP generators [1198.828458, 309.8926610]
bad: 46.635848 comp: 6.309298 err: 1.171542



Number 30 Quartaminorthirds


[9, 5, -3, -13, -30, -21] [[1, 1, 2, 3], [0, 9, 5, -3]]
TOP tuning [1199.792743, 1900.291122, 2788.751252, 3365.878770]
TOP generators [1199.792743, 77.83315314]
bad: 47.721352 comp: 6.742251 err: 1.049791




Number 31 Tripletone


[3, 0, -6, -7, -18, -14] [[3, 5, 7, 8], [0, -1, 0, 2]]
TOP tuning [1197.060039, 1902.640406, 2793.140092, 3377.079420]
TOP generators [399.0200131, 92.45965769]
bad: 48.112067 comp: 4.045351 err: 2.939961



Number 32 Decimal


[4, 2, 2, -6, -8, -1] [[2, 4, 5, 6], [0, -2, -1, -1]]
TOP tuning [1207.657798, 1914.092323, 2768.532858, 3372.361757]
TOP generators [603.8288989, 250.6116362]
bad: 48.773723 comp: 2.523719 err: 7.657798



Number 33 {1029/1024, 4375/4374}


[12, 22, -4, 7, -40, -71] [[2, 5, 8, 5], [0, -6, -11, 2]]
TOP tuning [1200.421488, 1901.286959, 2785.446889, 3367.642640]
TOP generators [600.2107440, 183.2944602]
bad: 50.004574 comp: 10.892116 err: .421488



Number 34 Superpythagorean


[1, 9, -2, 12, -6, -30] [[1, 2, 6, 2], [0, -1, -9, 2]]
TOP tuning [1197.596121, 1905.765059, 2780.732078, 3374.046608]
TOP generators [1197.596121, 489.4271829]
bad: 50.917015 comp: 4.602303 err: 2.403879



Number 35 Supermajor seconds


[3, 12, -1, 12, -10, -36] [[1, 1, 0, 3], [0, 3, 12, -1]]
TOP tuning [1201.698521, 1899.262909, 2790.257556, 3372.574099]
TOP generators [1201.698520, 232.5214630]
bad: 51.806440 comp: 5.522763 err: 1.698521



Number 36 Supersupermajor


[3, 17, -1, 20, -10, -50] [[1, 1, -1, 3], [0, 3, 17, -1]]
TOP tuning [1200.231588, 1903.372996, 2784.236389, 3366.314293]
TOP generators [1200.231587, 234.3804692]
bad: 52.638504 comp: 7.670504 err: .894655



Number 37 {6144/6125, 10976/10935} Hendecatonic?


[11, -11, 22, -43, 4, 82] [[11, 17, 26, 30], [0, 1, -1, 2]]
TOP tuning [1199.662182, 1902.490429, 2787.098101, 3368.740066]
TOP generators [109.0601984, 48.46705632]
bad: 53.458690 comp: 12.579627 err: .337818



Number 38 {3136/3125, 5120/5103} Misty


[3, -12, -30, -26, -56, -36] [[3, 5, 6, 6], [0, -1, 4, 10]]
TOP tuning [1199.661465, 1902.491566, 2787.099767, 3368.765021]
TOP generators [399.8871550, 96.94420930]
bad: 53.622498 comp: 12.585536 err: .338535



Number 39 {1728/1715, 4000/3993}


[11, 18, 5, 3, -23, -39] [[1, 2, 3, 3], [0, -11, -18, -5]]
TOP tuning [1199.083445, 1901.293958, 2784.185538, 3371.399002]
TOP generators [1199.083445, 45.17026643]
bad: 55.081549 comp: 7.752178 err: .916555



Number 40 {36/35, 160/147} Hystrix?


[3, 5, 1, 1, -7, -12] [[1, 2, 3, 3], [0, -3, -5, -1]]
TOP tuning [1187.933715, 1892.564743, 2758.296667, 3402.700250]
TOP generators [1187.933715, 161.1008955]
bad: 55.952057 comp: 2.153383 err: 12.066285



Number 41 {28/27, 50/49}


[2, 6, 6, 5, 4, -3] [[2, 3, 4, 5], [0, 1, 3, 3]]
TOP tuning [1191.599639, 1915.269258, 2766.808679, 3362.608498]
TOP generators [595.7998193, 127.8698005]
bad: 56.092257 comp: 2.584059 err: 8.400361



Number 42 Porcupine


[3, 5, -6, 1, -18, -28] [[1, 2, 3, 2], [0, -3, -5, 6]]
TOP tuning [1196.905961, 1906.858938, 2779.129576, 3367.717888]
TOP generators [1196.905960, 162.3176609]
bad: 57.088650 comp: 4.295482 err: 3.094040



Number 43


[6, 10, 10, 2, -1, -5] [[2, 4, 6, 7], [0, -3, -5, -5]]
TOP tuning [1196.893422, 1906.838962, 2779.100462, 3377.547174]
TOP generators [598.4467109, 162.3159606]
bad: 57.621529 comp: 4.306766 err: 3.106578



Number 44 Octacot


[8, 18, 11, 10, -5, -25] [[1, 1, 1, 2], [0, 8, 18, 11]]
TOP tuning [1199.031259, 1903.490418, 2784.064367, 3366.693863]
TOP generators [1199.031259, 88.05739491]
bad: 58.217715 comp: 7.752178 err: .968741



Number 45 {25/24, 81/80} Jamesbond?


[0, 0, 7, 0, 11, 16] [[7, 11, 16, 20], [0, 0, 0, -1]]
TOP tuning [1209.431411, 1900.535075, 2764.414655, 3368.825906]
TOP generators [172.7759159, 86.69241190]
bad: 58.637859 comp: 2.493450 err: 9.431411



Number 46 Hemithirds


[15, -2, -5, -38, -50, -6] [[1, 4, 2, 2], [0, -15, 2, 5]]
TOP tuning [1200.363229, 1901.194685, 2787.427555, 3367.479202]
TOP generators [1200.363229, 193.3505488]
bad: 60.573479 comp: 11.237086 err: .479706



Number 47


[12, 34, 20, 26, -2, -49] [[2, 4, 7, 7], [0, -6, -17, -10]]
TOP tuning [1200.284965, 1901.503343, 2786.975381, 3369.219732]
TOP generators [600.1424823, 83.17776441]
bad: 61.101493 comp: 14.643003 err: .284965



Number 48 Flattone


[1, 4, -9, 4, -17, -32] [[1, 2, 4, -1], [0, -1, -4, 9]]
TOP tuning [1202.536420, 1897.934872, 2781.593812, 3361.705278]
TOP generators [1202.536419, 507.1379663]
bad: 61.126418 comp: 4.909123 err: 2.536420



Number 49 Diaschismic


[2, -4, -16, -11, -31, -26] [[2, 3, 5, 7], [0, 1, -2, -8]]
TOP tuning [1198.732403, 1901.885616, 2789.256983, 3365.267311]
TOP generators [599.3662015, 103.7870123]
bad: 61.527901 comp: 6.966993 err: 1.267597



Number 50 Superkleismic


[9, 10, -3, -5, -30, -35] [[1, 4, 5, 2], [0, -9, -10, 3]]
TOP tuning [1201.371917, 1904.129438, 2783.128219, 3369.863245]
TOP generators [1201.371918, 322.3731369]
bad: 62.364585 comp: 6.742251 err: 1.371918



Number 51


[8, 1, 18, -17, 6, 39] [[1, -1, 2, -3], [0, 8, 1, 18]]
TOP tuning [1201.135544, 1899.537544, 2789.855225, 3373.107814]
TOP generators [1201.135545, 387.5841360]
bad: 62.703297 comp: 6.411729 err: 1.525246



Number 52 Tritonic


[5, -11, -12, -29, -33, 3] [[1, 4, -3, -3], [0, -5, 11, 12]]
TOP tuning [1201.023211, 1900.333250, 2785.201472, 3365.953391]
TOP generators [1201.023211, 580.7519186]
bad: 63.536850 comp: 7.880073 err: 1.023211



Number 53


[1, 33, 27, 50, 40, -30] [[1, 2, 16, 14], [0, -1, -33, -27]]
TOP tuning [1199.680495, 1902.108988, 2785.571846, 3369.722869]
TOP generators [1199.680495, 497.2520023]
bad: 64.536886 comp: 14.212326 err: .319505



Number 54


[6, 10, 3, 2, -12, -21] [[1, 2, 3, 3], [0, -6, -10, -3]]
TOP tuning [1202.659696, 1907.471368, 2778.232381, 3359.055076]
TOP generators [1202.659696, 82.97467050]
bad: 64.556006 comp: 4.306766 err: 3.480440



Number 55


[0, 0, 12, 0, 19, 28] [[12, 19, 28, 34], [0, 0, 0, -1]]
TOP tuning [1197.674070, 1896.317278, 2794.572829, 3368.825906]
TOP generators [99.80617249, 24.58395811]
bad: 65.630949 comp: 4.295482 err: 3.557008



Number 56


[2, 1, -4, -3, -12, -12] [[1, 1, 2, 4], [0, 2, 1, -4]]
TOP tuning [1204.567524, 1916.451342, 2765.076958, 3394.502460]
TOP generators [1204.567524, 355.9419091]
bad: 66.522610 comp: 2.696901 err: 9.146173



Number 57


[2, -2, 1, -8, -4, 8] [[1, 2, 2, 3], [0, -2, 2, -1]]
TOP tuning [1185.869125, 1924.351909, 2819.124589, 3333.914203]
TOP generators [1185.869125, 223.6931705]
bad: 66.774944 comp: 2.173813 err: 14.130876



Number 58


[5, 8, 2, 1, -11, -18] [[1, 2, 3, 3], [0, -5, -8, -2]]
TOP tuning [1194.335372, 1892.976778, 2789.895770, 3384.728528]
TOP generators [1194.335372, 99.13879319]
bad: 67.244049 comp: 3.445412 err: 5.664628



Number 59


[3, 5, 9, 1, 6, 7] [[1, 2, 3, 4], [0, -3, -5, -9]]
TOP tuning [1193.415676, 1912.390908, 2789.512955, 3350.341372]
TOP generators [1193.415676, 158.1468146]
bad: 67.670842 comp: 3.205865 err: 6.584324



Number 60


[3, 0, 9, -7, 6, 21] [[3, 5, 7, 9], [0, -1, 0, -3]]
TOP tuning [1193.415676, 1912.390908, 2784.636577, 3350.341372]
TOP generators [397.8052253, 76.63521863]
bad: 68.337269 comp: 3.221612 err: 6.584324



Number 61 Hemikleismic


[12, 10, -9, -12, -48, -49] [[1, 0, 1, 4], [0, 12, 10, -9]]
TOP tuning [1199.411231, 1902.888178, 2785.151380, 3370.478790]
TOP generators [1199.411231, 158.5740148]
bad: 68.516458 comp: 10.787602 err: .588769



Number 62


[2, -2, -2, -8, -9, 1] [[2, 3, 5, 6], [0, 1, -1, -1]]
TOP tuning [1185.468457, 1924.986952, 2816.886876, 3409.621105]
TOP generators [592.7342285, 146.7842660]
bad: 68.668284 comp: 2.173813 err: 14.531543



Number 63


[8, 13, 23, 2, 14, 17] [[1, 2, 3, 4], [0, -8, -13, -23]]
TOP tuning [1198.975478, 1900.576277, 2788.692580, 3365.949709]
TOP generators [1198.975478, 62.17183489]
bad: 68.767371 comp: 8.192765 err: 1.024522



Number 64


[3, -7, -8, -18, -21, 1] [[1, 3, -1, -1], [0, -3, 7, 8]]
TOP tuning [1202.900537, 1897.357759, 2790.235118, 3360.683070]
TOP generators [1202.900537, 570.4479508]
bad: 69.388565 comp: 4.891080 err: 2.900537



Number 65


[3, 12, 11, 12, 9, -8] [[1, 3, 8, 8], [0, -3, -12, -11]]
TOP tuning [1202.624742, 1900.726787, 2792.408176, 3361.457323]
TOP generators [1202.624742, 569.0491468]
bad: 70.105427 comp: 5.168119 err: 2.624742



Number 66


[17, 6, 15, -30, -24, 18] [[1, -5, 0, -3], [0, 17, 6, 15]]
TOP tuning [1199.379215, 1900.971080, 2787.482526, 3370.568669]
TOP generators [1199.379215, 464.5804210]
bad: 71.416917 comp: 10.725806 err: .620785



Number 67


[11, 13, 17, -5, -4, 3] [[1, 3, 4, 5], [0, -11, -13, -17]]
TOP tuning [1198.514750, 1899.600936, 2789.762356, 3371.570447]
TOP generators [1198.514750, 154.1766650]
bad: 71.539673 comp: 6.940227 err: 1.485250



Number 68


[3, -24, -1, -45, -10, 65] [[1, 1, 7, 3], [0, 3, -24, -1]]
TOP tuning [1200.486331, 1902.481504, 2787.442939, 3367.460603]
TOP generators [1200.486331, 233.9983907]
bad: 72.714599 comp: 12.227699 err: .486331



Number 69


[23, -1, 13, -55, -44, 33] [[1, 9, 2, 7], [0, -23, 1, -13]]
TOP tuning [1199.671611, 1901.434518, 2786.108874, 3369.747810]
TOP generators [1199.671611, 386.7656515]
bad: 73.346343 comp: 14.944966 err: .328389



Number 70


[6, 29, -2, 32, -20, -86] [[1, 4, 14, 2], [0, -6, -29, 2]]
TOP tuning [1200.422358, 1901.285580, 2787.294397, 3367.645998]
TOP generators [1200.422357, 483.4006416]
bad: 73.516606 comp: 13.193267 err: .422358



Number 71


[7, -15, -16, -40, -45, 5] [[1, 5, -5, -5], [0, -7, 15, 16]]
TOP tuning [1200.210742, 1900.961474, 2784.858222, 3370.585685]
TOP generators [1200.210742, 585.7274621]
bad: 74.053446 comp: 10.869066 err: .626846



Number 72


[5, 3, 7, -7, -3, 8] [[1, 1, 2, 2], [0, 5, 3, 7]]
TOP tuning [1192.540126, 1890.131381, 2803.635005, 3361.708008]
TOP generators [1192.540126, 139.5182509]
bad: 74.239244 comp: 3.154649 err: 7.459874



Number 73


[4, 21, -3, 24, -16, -66] [[1, 0, -6, 4], [0, 4, 21, -3]]
TOP tuning [1199.274449, 1901.646683, 2787.998389, 3370.862785]
TOP generators [1199.274449, 475.4116708]
bad: 74.381278 comp: 10.125066 err: .725551



Number 74


[3, -5, -6, -15, -18, 0] [[1, 3, 0, 0], [0, -3, 5, 6]]
TOP tuning [1195.486066, 1908.381352, 2796.794743, 3356.153692]
TOP generators [1195.486066, 559.3589487]
bad: 74.989802 comp: 4.075900 err: 4.513934



Number 75


[6, 0, 3, -14, -12, 7] [[3, 4, 7, 8], [0, 2, 0, 1]]
TOP tuning [1199.400031, 1910.341746, 2798.600074, 3353.970936]
TOP generators [399.8000105, 155.5708520]
bad: 76.576420 comp: 3.804173 err: 5.291448



Number 76


[13, 2, 30, -27, 11, 64] [[1, 6, 3, 13], [0, -13, -2, -30]]
TOP tuning [1200.672456, 1900.889183, 2786.148822, 3370.713730]
TOP generators [1200.672456, 407.9342733]
bad: 76.791305 comp: 10.686216 err: .672456



Number 77 Shrutar


[4, -8, 14, -22, 11, 55] [[2, 3, 5, 5], [0, 2, -4, 7]]
TOP tuning [1198.920873, 1903.665377, 2786.734051, 3365.796415]
TOP generators [599.4604367, 52.64203308]
bad: 76.825572 comp: 8.437555 err: 1.079127



Number 78


[12, 10, 25, -12, 6, 30] [[1, 6, 6, 12], [0, -12, -10, -25]]
TOP tuning [1199.028703, 1903.494472, 2785.274095, 3366.099130]
TOP generators [1199.028703, 440.8898120]
bad: 77.026097 comp: 8.905180 err: .971298



Number 79 Beatles


[2, -9, -4, -19, -12, 16] [[1, 1, 5, 4], [0, 2, -9, -4]]
TOP tuning [1197.104145, 1906.544822, 2793.037680, 3369.535226]
TOP generators [1197.104145, 354.7203384]
bad: 77.187771 comp: 5.162806 err: 2.895855



Number 80


[6, -12, 10, -33, -1, 57] [[2, 4, 3, 7], [0, -3, 6, -5]]
TOP tuning [1199.025947, 1903.033657, 2788.575394, 3371.560420]
TOP generators [599.5129735, 165.0060791]
bad: 78.320453 comp: 8.966980 err: .974054



Number 81


[4, 4, 0, -3, -11, -11] [[4, 6, 9, 11], [0, 1, 1, 0]]
TOP tuning [1212.384652, 1905.781495, 2815.069985, 3334.057793]
TOP generators [303.0961630, 63.74881402]
bad: 78.879803 comp: 2.523719 err: 12.384652



Number 82


[6, -2, -2, -17, -20, 1] [[2, 2, 5, 6], [0, 3, -1, -1]]
TOP tuning [1203.400986, 1896.025764, 2777.627538, 3379.328030]
TOP generators [601.7004928, 230.8749260]
bad: 79.825592 comp: 4.619353 err: 3.740932



Number 83


[1, 6, 5, 7, 5, -5] [[1, 2, 5, 5], [0, -1, -6, -5]]
TOP tuning [1211.970043, 1882.982932, 2814.107292, 3355.064446]
TOP generators [1211.970043, 540.9571536]
bad: 79.928319 comp: 2.584059 err: 11.970043



Number 84 Squares


[4, 16, 9, 16, 3, -24] [[1, 3, 8, 6], [0, -4, -16, -9]]
TOP tuning [1201.698521, 1899.262909, 2790.257556, 3372.067656]
TOP generators [1201.698520, 426.4581630]
bad: 80.651668 comp: 6.890825 err: 1.698521



Number 85


[6, 0, 0, -14, -17, 0] [[6, 10, 14, 17], [0, -1, 0, 0]]
TOP tuning [1194.473353, 1901.955001, 2787.104490, 3384.341166]
TOP generators [199.0788921, 88.83392059]
bad: 80.672767 comp: 3.820609 err: 5.526647



Number 86


[7, 26, 25, 25, 20, -15] [[1, 5, 15, 15], [0, -7, -26, -25]]
TOP tuning [1199.352846, 1902.980716, 2784.811068, 3369.637284]
TOP generators [1199.352846, 584.8262161]
bad: 81.144087 comp: 11.197591 err: .647154



Number 87


[18, 15, -6, -18, -60, -56] [[3, 6, 8, 8], [0, -6, -5, 2]]
TOP tuning [1200.448679, 1901.787880, 2785.271912, 3367.566305]
TOP generators [400.1495598, 83.18491309]
bad: 81.584166 comp: 13.484503 err: .448679



Number 88


[9, -2, 14, -24, -3, 38] [[1, 3, 2, 5], [0, -9, 2, -14]]
TOP tuning [1201.918556, 1904.657347, 2781.858962, 3363.439837]
TOP generators [1201.918557, 189.0109248]
bad: 81.594641 comp: 6.521440 err: 1.918557



Number 89


[1, -8, -2, -15, -6, 18] [[1, 2, -1, 2], [0, -1, 8, 2]]
TOP tuning [1195.155395, 1894.070902, 2774.763716, 3382.790568]
TOP generators [1195.155395, 496.2398890]
bad: 82.638059 comp: 4.075900 err: 4.974313



Number 90


[3, 7, -1, 4, -10, -22] [[1, 1, 1, 3], [0, 3, 7, -1]]
TOP tuning [1205.820043, 1890.417958, 2803.215176, 3389.260823]
TOP generators [1205.820043, 228.1993049]
bad: 82.914167 comp: 3.375022 err: 7.279064




Number 91


[6, 5, -31, -6, -66, -86] [[1, 0, 1, 11], [0, 6, 5, -31]]
TOP tuning [1199.976626, 1902.553087, 2785.437532, 3369.885264]
TOP generators [1199.976626, 317.0921813]
bad: 83.023430 comp: 14.832953 err: .377351



Number 92


[8, 6, 6, -9, -13, -3] [[2, 5, 6, 7], [0, -4, -3, -3]]
TOP tuning [1198.553882, 1907.135354, 2778.724633, 3378.001574]
TOP generators [599.2769413, 272.3123381]
bad: 83.268810 comp: 5.047438 err: 3.268439



Number 93


[4, 2, 9, -6, 3, 15] [[1, 3, 3, 6], [0, -4, -2, -9]]
TOP tuning [1208.170435, 1910.173796, 2767.342550, 3391.763218]
TOP generators [1208.170435, 428.5843770]
bad: 83.972208 comp: 3.205865 err: 8.170435



Number 94 Hexidecimal


[1, -3, 5, -7, 5, 20] [[1, 2, 1, 5], [0, -1, 3, -5]]
TOP tuning [1208.959294, 1887.754858, 2799.450479, 3393.977822]
TOP generators [1208.959293, 530.1637287]
bad: 84.341555 comp: 3.068202 err: 8.959294



Number 95


[6, 0, 15, -14, 7, 35] [[3, 5, 7, 9], [0, -2, 0, -5]]
TOP tuning [1197.060039, 1902.856975, 2793.140092, 3360.572393]
TOP generators [399.0200131, 46.12154491]
bad: 84.758945 comp: 5.369353 err: 2.939961



Number 96


[0, 12, 12, 19, 19, -6] [[12, 19, 28, 34], [0, 0, -1, -1]]
TOP tuning [1198.015473, 1896.857833, 2778.846497, 3377.854234]
TOP generators [99.83462277, 16.52294019]
bad: 85.896401 comp: 5.168119 err: 3.215955



Number 97


[11, -6, 10, -35, -15, 40] [[1, 4, 1, 5], [0, -11, 6, -10]]
TOP tuning [1200.950404, 1901.347958, 2784.106944, 3366.157786]
TOP generators [1200.950404, 263.8594234]
bad: 85.962459 comp: 9.510433 err: .950404



Number 98 Slender


[13, -10, 6, -46, -27, 42] [[1, 2, 2, 3], [0, -13, 10, -6]]
TOP tuning [1200.337238, 1901.055858, 2784.996493, 3370.418508]
TOP generators [1200.337239, 38.43220154]
bad: 88.631905 comp: 12.499426 err: .567296



Number 99


[0, 5, 10, 8, 16, 9] [[5, 8, 12, 15], [0, 0, -1, -2]]
TOP tuning [1195.598382, 1912.957411, 2770.195472, 3388.313857]
TOP generators [239.1196765, 99.24064453]
bad: 89.758630 comp: 3.595867 err: 6.941749



Number 100


[1, -1, -5, -4, -11, -9] [[1, 2, 2, 1], [0, -1, 1, 5]]
TOP tuning [1185.210905, 1925.395162, 2815.448458, 3410.344145]
TOP generators [1185.210905, 445.0266480]
bad: 90.384580 comp: 2.472159 err: 14.789095



Number 101


[2, 8, -11, 8, -23, -48] [[1, 1, 0, 6], [0, 2, 8, -11]]
TOP tuning [1201.698521, 1899.262909, 2790.257556, 3373.586984]
TOP generators [1201.698520, 348.7821945]
bad: 92.100337 comp: 7.363684 err: 1.698521



Number 102


[3, 12, 18, 12, 20, 8] [[3, 5, 8, 10], [0, -1, -4, -6]]
TOP tuning [1202.260038, 1898.372926, 2784.451552, 3375.170635]
TOP generators [400.7533459, 105.3938041]
bad: 92.910783 comp: 6.411729 err: 2.260038



Number 103


[4, -8, -20, -22, -43, -24] [[4, 6, 10, 13], [0, 1, -2, -5]]
TOP tuning [1199.003867, 1903.533834, 2787.453602, 3371.622404]
TOP generators [299.7509668, 105.0280329]
bad: 93.029698 comp: 9.663894 err: .996133



Number 104


[3, 0, -3, -7, -13, -7] [[3, 5, 7, 8], [0, -1, 0, 1]]
TOP tuning [1205.132027, 1884.438632, 2811.974729, 3337.800149]
TOP generators [401.7106756, 124.1147448]
bad: 94.336372 comp: 2.921642 err: 11.051598



Number 105


[4, 7, 2, 2, -8, -15] [[1, 2, 3, 3], [0, -4, -7, -2]]
TOP tuning [1190.204869, 1918.438775, 2762.165422, 3339.629125]
TOP generators [1190.204869, 115.4927407]
bad: 94.522719 comp: 3.014736 err: 10.400103




Number 106


[13, 19, 23, 0, 0, 0] [[1, 0, 0, 0], [0, 13, 19, 23]]
TOP tuning [1200.0, 1904.187463, 2783.043215, 3368.947050]
TOP generators [1200., 146.4759587]
bad: 94.757554 comp: 8.202087 err: 1.408527



Number 107


[2, -6, -6, -14, -15, 3] [[2, 3, 5, 6], [0, 1, -3, -3]]
TOP tuning [1206.548264, 1891.576247, 2771.109113, 3374.383246]
TOP generators [603.2741324, 81.75384943]
bad: 94.764743 comp: 3.804173 err: 6.548265



Number 108


[2, -6, -6, -14, -15, 3] [[2, 3, 5, 6], [0, 1, -3, -3]]
TOP tuning [1206.548264, 1891.576247, 2771.109113, 3374.383246]
TOP generators [603.2741324, 81.75384943]
bad: 94.764743 comp: 3.804173 err: 6.548265



Number 109


[1, -13, -2, -23, -6, 32] [[1, 2, -3, 2], [0, -1, 13, 2]]
TOP tuning [1197.567789, 1904.876372, 2780.666293, 3375.653987]
TOP generators [1197.567789, 490.2592046]
bad: 94.999539 comp: 6.249713 err: 2.432212



Number 110


[9, 0, 9, -21, -11, 21] [[9, 14, 21, 25], [0, 1, 0, 1]]
TOP tuning [1197.060039, 1897.499011, 2793.140092, 3360.572393]
TOP generators [133.0066710, 35.40561749]
bad: 95.729260 comp: 5.706260 err: 2.939961



Number 111


[5, 1, 9, -10, 0, 18] [[1, 0, 2, 0], [0, 5, 1, 9]]
TOP tuning [1193.274911, 1886.640142, 2763.877849, 3395.952256]
TOP generators [1193.274911, 377.3280283]
bad: 99.308041 comp: 3.205865 err: 9.662601



Number 112 Muggles


[5, 1, -7, -10, -25, -19] [[1, 0, 2, 5], [0, 5, 1, -7]]
TOP tuning [1203.148010, 1896.965522, 2785.689126, 3359.988323]
TOP generators [1203.148011, 379.3931044]
bad: 99.376477 comp: 5.618543 err: 3.148011



Number 113


[11, 6, 15, -16, -7, 18] [[1, 1, 2, 2], [0, 11, 6, 15]]
TOP tuning [1202.072164, 1905.239303, 2787.690040, 3363.008608]
TOP generators [1202.072164, 63.92428535]
bad: 99.809415 comp: 6.940227 err: 2.072164



Number 114


[1, -8, -26, -15, -44, -38] [[1, 2, -1, -8], [0, -1, 8, 26]]
TOP tuning [1199.424969, 1900.336158, 2788.685275, 3365.958541]
TOP generators [1199.424969, 498.5137806]
bad: 99.875385 comp: 9.888635 err: 1.021376

Now what was the point of that?

Previous Next

10000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400 10450 10500 10550 10600 10650 10700 10750 10800 10850 10900 10950

10150 - 10175 -