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 S 1110000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400 10450 10500 10550 10600 10650 10700 10750 10800 10850 10900 10950
10450 - 10475 -
Message: 10478 Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:26:19 Subject: Re: Hanzos From: Carl Lumma >> >What I don't understand is why anyone would want to. You can also >> >throw away the 7, and keep the 2,3 and 5. Would anyone propose >> >doing that? It strikes me as an absurd proceedure. Where >> >octave-equivalent vectors are useful is in octave-equivalent >> >contexts. >> >> We weren't talking about temperaments, we were talking about finding >> chord sequences in JI; clearly an occasion for octave equivalence. > >You seem to be mixing up to completely different threads, unless there >was a connection I was supposed to have noticed and didn't. The only reason I ever brought up Hahn was in the stepwise thread. You created the Hanzos thread, you tell me what it's about. -Carl
Message: 10480 Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 17:37:12 Subject: Re: Hanzos 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 Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote: > > > > >> I don't know where sqrt would be coming from. I thought > > everything > > > > >> would have to have whole number lengths. > > > > > > > > > >I'm using Euclidean distances. > > > > > > > > I wish you had said that. > > > > > > If I'm talking about symmetric lattices, that would be assumed. > > > > You didn't assume it the other week, when it seemed (even upon > > clarification) that you referred to *two* possible metrics in the > > symmetric lattice -- the euclidean one, and the 'taxicab' one. > > Those are two different lattices, But they both can only be drawn with the usual tetrahedra and octahedra, right? So they *look* like the same lattice, and the choice of metric has to be specified *verbally*. > and my point is that if someone says > "symmetric lattice" without qualification they presumably mean the > stuff you guys already knew about when I got here. Which pretty much used a 'taxicab' metric (as per Paul Hahn's algorithm) when a metric was used at all. > > That's a bogus assumption. We live in a nearly euclidean universe so > > people have no choice in the matter when it comes to diagrams. If I > > draw a Tenney lattice, which assumes a taxicab metric, how am I > > supposed to avoid drawing it in a way that you'd interpret as > > euclidean?? > > You tell us it's a Tenney lattice. This is really the only possible > method. So you see why your assumption was bogus, yes?
Message: 10484 Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:06:44 Subject: Re: Hanzos From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > > > > You didn't assume it the other week, when it seemed (even upon > > > > clarification) that you referred to *two* possible metrics in the > > > > symmetric lattice -- the euclidean one, and the 'taxicab' one. > > > > > > Those are two different lattices, > > > > But they both can only be drawn with the usual tetrahedra and > > octahedra, right? So they *look* like the same lattice, and the > > choice of metric has to be specified *verbally*. > > > Strictly speaking, only one of them can be drawn at all. So you can't draw a graph? > > > and my point is that if someone says > > > "symmetric lattice" without qualification they presumably mean the > > > stuff you guys already knew about when I got here. > > > > Which pretty much used a 'taxicab' metric (as per Paul Hahn's > > algorithm) when a metric was used at all. > > Are you saying you actually were clueless about this until I arrived? > Did you not know a hexany was a literal octahedron, and tetrads > literal tetrahedra? That's the way we were drawing them, so I don't know what you could mean by 'clueless'. > I'd be interested to know what people meant by "lattice" when I > arrived, though, and whether we have been miscommunicating from the >start. In any case, hopefully it's clear to you that Paul Hahn's algorithm (at least if we stick to 7-limit and don't mess with 9-limit) gives the taxicab distance in the symmetric oct-tet lattice. Since it measures the number of 'consonances' needed to get from one note to another, it's certainly a meaningful measure, while the euclidean distance doesn't seem to signify anything musically meaningful.
Message: 10487 Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 18:40:17 Subject: Re: Hanzos From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > > > Strictly speaking, only one of them can be drawn at all. > > > > So you can't draw a graph? > > A figure in Tenney space is not a mere graph; it has far more structure. OK . . . but can't you think of it as existing in euclidean space and define a new kind of distance in which one is restricted to traveling along the edges? > > > Are you saying you actually were clueless about this until I > > arrived? > > > Did you not know a hexany was a literal octahedron, and tetrads > > > literal tetrahedra? > > > > That's the way we were drawing them, so I don't know what you could > > mean by 'clueless'. > > Did you or did you not know you could put 7-limit note classes into a > symmetric lattice pattern in three dimensional Euclidean space? Since we were actually doing so, it seems absurd to question whether we knew that we could do so. We simply rarely or never measured euclidean distances in this structure, since they don't carry a straightforward musical meaning. > > In any case, hopefully it's clear to you that Paul Hahn's algorithm > > (at least if we stick to 7-limit and don't mess with 9-limit) gives > > the taxicab distance in the symmetric oct-tet lattice. Since it > > measures the number of 'consonances' needed to get from one note to > > another, it's certainly a meaningful measure, while the euclidean > > distance doesn't seem to signify anything musically meaningful. > > I agree it is meaningful and quite interesting; I don't agree > Euclidean is meaningless. You've been sleeping through my postings if > you think that; I don't appreciate that comment. > Euclidean draws finer distinctions than Hahn's measure > does, Clearly -- but are they meaningful distinctions? > and those distinctions do relate to things musical. Namely . . . ?
Message: 10489 Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:14:43 Subject: Re: Hanzos 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: > > > > > > > > Strictly speaking, only one of them can be drawn at all. > > > > > > > > So you can't draw a graph? > > > > > > A figure in Tenney space is not a mere graph; it has far more > > structure. > > > > OK . . . but can't you think of it as existing in euclidean space and > > define a new kind of distance in which one is restricted to traveling > > along the edges? > > Sure, and that may be a good approach. You are now using a Euclidean > lattice, and defining a corridor-travel distance function on top of > it. It is certainly familiar to us that as-the-crow-flies and as the > taxicab drives are both valid and can exist simultaneously. > > > > Did you or did you not know you could put 7-limit note classes into > > a > > > symmetric lattice pattern in three dimensional Euclidean space? > > > > Since we were actually doing so, it seems absurd to question whether > > we knew that we could do so. We simply rarely or never measured > > euclidean distances in this structure, since they don't carry a > > straightforward musical meaning. > > It never occurred to you to do orthogonal transformations? We've transformed between the 48 elements of the symmetry group of the 7-limit lattice. Are "orthogonal transformations" the ones that involve a 90-degree rotation, or something else? > In any > case, you should be aware that there *are* differences between > intervals like 15/14 and 21/20 as compared to 25/24, 36/35 or 49/48, > and that these again are different from 50/49. We could refer to these as "meta", "ortho", and "para", respectively. > They all take two > 7-limit consonaces to get to, which is why they all turn up in the > stepwise problem I've recently been posting on, and Hahn's measure > captures that. They behave differently in terms of how the chord > relationships work, and the finer distinctions of the Euclidean metric > capture that. But there's nothing *special* about the euclidean metric here. The chord relationships work differently, but what is it about them that implies the specific values that the euclidean metric gives? > > I don't appreciate that comment. > > Nevertheless, it seems you've been missing a lot. I don't think so. > > > Euclidean draws finer distinctions than Hahn's measure > > > does, > > > > Clearly -- but are they meaningful distinctions? > > See above. Yes, of course they are meaningful. If you want to try to > linearly transform 50/49 to 49/48, be my guest, but don't be surprised > when it works very differently than a linear transformation sending > 15/14 to 21/20. You misunderstood my question, and in fact I find this response highly condescending.
Message: 10490 Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 19:16:43 Subject: Re: Hanzos From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > It never occurred to you to do orthogonal transformations? In any > case, you should be aware that there *are* differences between > intervals like 15/14 and 21/20 as compared to 25/24, 36/35 or 49/48, > and that these again are different from 50/49. I meant to say "ortho", "meta", and "para", respectively.
Message: 10493 Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:41:56 Subject: Re: Hanzos 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 never occurred to you to do orthogonal transformations? > > > > We've transformed between the 48 elements of the symmetry group of > > the 7-limit lattice. Are "orthogonal transformations" the ones that > > involve a 90-degree rotation, or something else? > > I meant isometries--Euclidean distance preserving mappings--fixing the > origin, and sending the lattice to itself. So are there 48 of these for the 7-limit symmetrical (oct-tet) lattice? Did I forget to count mirror inversions? > > > They all take two > > > 7-limit consonaces to get to, which is why they all turn up in the > > > stepwise problem I've recently been posting on, and Hahn's measure > > > captures that. They behave differently in terms of how the chord > > > relationships work, and the finer distinctions of the Euclidean > > metric > > > capture that. > > > > But there's nothing *special* about the euclidean metric here. The > > chord relationships work differently, but what is it about them that > > implies the specific values that the euclidean metric gives? > > The Euclidean metric gives the most refined distinctions. The Hahn > metric replaces spheres with rhombic dodecahedra. This means to figure > out what it means in general, and not just between lattice points, > you'd need to work that out, which sounds like a bit of a pain but is > probably worth doing; but it also means you end up conflating a lot of > things the Euclidean metric classifies as distinct. If you want to > really understand things, Euclidean is often the way to go. It's perfectly clear that Hahn's metric 'conflates' things. But Euclidean seems arbitrary among an infinite class of possibilities here. > Here's an example: from a Euclidean point of view, 81/80 and 1029/1024 > are symmetrically located with respect to 1, and this is interesting; > we can immediately conclude that 81/80 planar and 1029/1024 planar can > be transformed between. From a Hahn point of view, they are still > symmetrically located, and this is less interesting, because we would > need further analysis to tell us that we can, in fact, transform 81/80 > planar to 1029/1024 planar. Hahn's metric isn't intended to tell us anything about configuration, so I don't see this as a flaw. > > > See above. Yes, of course they are meaningful. If you want to try to > > > linearly transform 50/49 to 49/48, be my guest, but don't be > > surprised > > > when it works very differently than a linear transformation sending > > > 15/14 to 21/20. > > > > You misunderstood my question, and in fact I find this response > > highly condescending. > > Touchy touchy. Why should I be the only one on this thread to be > condescended to, if that really is what the above involves? Is it in > fact so obvious that 49/48<-->50/49 is a very different propostion > than 15/14<-->21/20, and if so, why? It's immediately evident from looking at the lattice. > It's tough if I am going to be > dumped on half the time for obscurity, and the other half for > condescendingly explaining the blindingly obvious. It's possible to explain the blindingly obvious without being condescending. Don't take it personally, but do try to improve.
Message: 10494 Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 20:57:53 Subject: Re: Hanzos From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > The Hahn > metric replaces spheres with rhombic dodecahedra. This means to figure > out what it means in general, and not just between lattice points, > you'd need to work that out, Why would anyone ever use it on non-lattice points?
Message: 10496 Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:19:54 Subject: Re: Hanzos From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > > So are there 48 of these for the 7-limit symmetrical (oct-tet) > > lattice? Did I forget to count mirror inversions? > > No; there are 48. In fcc coordinates, there are 8 sign changes and six > permutation, and 8*6 = 48. > > > > It's perfectly clear that Hahn's metric 'conflates' things. But > > Euclidean seems arbitrary among an infinite class of possibilities > > here. > > Hardly arbitrary if you accept the above 48 transformations as > interesting, since they are orthogonal. I don't get it. How does this list of transformations depend on your metric? > The Euclidean metric falls out > immediately in terms of the invariants of the group, actually. Can you explain this? > > > Here's an example: from a Euclidean point of view, 81/80 and > > 1029/1024 > > > are symmetrically located with respect to 1, and this is > > interesting; > > > we can immediately conclude that 81/80 planar and 1029/1024 planar > > can > > > be transformed between. From a Hahn point of view, they are still > > > symmetrically located, and this is less interesting, because we > > would > > > need further analysis to tell us that we can, in fact, transform > > 81/80 > > > planar to 1029/1024 planar. > > > > Hahn's metric isn't intended to tell us anything about configuration, > > so I don't see this as a flaw. > > I'm pointing out that Euclidean gives us more information. But all kinds of other shapes, besides a sphere, would also imply these same distinct shells. > > > Is it in > > > fact so obvious that 49/48<-->50/49 is a very different propostion > > > than 15/14<-->21/20, and if so, why? > > > > It's immediately evident from looking at the lattice. > > It's immediately obvious from looking at the *Euclidean* lattice. > Aren't you proving my point for me? Absolutely not. For instance, for 50:49 or any other "para" dyad with Hahn distance 2, there's only one note consonant with both pitches in the dyad. So it's straightforward to take the "lattice" (or whatever you want to call it) and transform 50:49 to any dyad which has this property (such as 9:8, 25:18, 25:16, etc.) while it would take some severe gymnastics to transform it to one that doesn't have this property, > > > It's tough if I am going to be > > > dumped on half the time for obscurity, and the other half for > > > condescendingly explaining the blindingly obvious. > > > > It's possible to explain the blindingly obvious without being > > condescending. Don't take it personally, but do try to improve. > > First I need to learn what is blindingly obvious and what isn't. No you don't -- just explain it without being condescending, and even if people already know it, they won't be offended. > And if I am > supposed to stop being condescending, will other people undertake to > do so also? I'm doing my best, and still improving, I think.
Message: 10498 Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 21:23:47 Subject: Re: Hanzos From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > > Why would anyone ever use it on non-lattice points? > > Constructing scales, for starters. Which scales involve non-lattice points? Your "shells" only led you to choose certain lattice points, and the non-lattice points were irrelevant, as far as I could tell . . . > In any case, whether you use it or > not it has to be defineable or you don't have a lattice. I'm happy with whatever it is you do have, I think.
10000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400 10450 10500 10550 10600 10650 10700 10750 10800 10850 10900 10950
10450 - 10475 -