4000 4050 4100 4150 4200 4250 4300 4350 4400 4450 4500 4550 4600 4650 4700 4750 4800 4850 4900 4950 5000 5050 5100 5150 5200 5250 5300 5350 5400 5450 5500 5550 5600 5650 5700 5750 5800 5850 5900 5950 6000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500 6550
5150 - 5175 -
![]()
![]()
Message: 5175 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 07:10:12 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > > > > I'd consider anything, but 2^s sounds ferocious! > > Fokker evaluated equal temperaments using 2^n and found 31-tET best! If he'd picked a different exponent he might have found something else to be the best. It's probably pretty easy to make 12 the best.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5176 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 07:15:01 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > > --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > > > > > > I'd consider anything, but 2^s sounds ferocious! > > > > Fokker evaluated equal temperaments using 2^n and found 31-tET best! > > If he'd picked a different exponent he might have found something > else to be the best. It's probably pretty easy to make 12 the best. My point is that 2^n doesn't go unreasonably far in penalizing large systems.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5177 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 08:12:03 Subject: Re: Graham's Top Ten From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > I'm trying to get an _intuitive_ handle on it . . . sigh . . . better > get those math books you mentioned! If you have library priviledges at a university library, the subject area is multilinear algebra, where exterior algebra and bilinear forms are important, and tensor products and differential forms can, let us hope, be safely ignored. However you could simply try to get a feel for it by doing some calculations. Since 64/63 = 2^6 3^-2 7^-1, I might write it 6 [2] - 2 [3] - [7], where the brakets are intended to signal the number is a vector. Then 50/49 = [2] + 2 [5] - 2 [7], and 50/49^64/63 = ([2]-2[5]-2[7])^(6[2]-2[3]-[7]). Taking the wedge product would be great practice...since a^b=b^a, a^a=0, so [2]^[2]=0, [3]^[3]=0, [5]^[5]=0, [7]^[7]=0. On the other hand, [2]^[7]= - [7]^[2], and so forth. Why not treat it as one of your challenges and work it out?
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5178 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 08:43:30 Subject: Re: Graham's Top Ten From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > > > I'm trying to get an _intuitive_ handle on it . . . sigh . . . > better > > get those math books you mentioned! > > If you have library priviledges at a university library, the subject > area is multilinear algebra, where exterior algebra and bilinear > forms are important, and tensor products and differential forms can, > let us hope, be safely ignored. However you could simply try to get a > feel for it by doing some calculations. Since 64/63 = 2^6 3^-2 7^- 1, > I might write it 6 [2] - 2 [3] - [7], where the brakets are intended > to signal the number is a vector. Then 50/49 = [2] + 2 [5] - 2 [7], > and > > 50/49^64/63 = ([2]-2[5]-2[7])^(6[2]-2[3]-[7]). Taking the wedge > product would be great practice...since a^b=b^a, a^a=0, so [2]^[2] =0, > [3]^[3]=0, [5]^[5]=0, [7]^[7]=0. On the other hand, > [2]^[7]= - [7]^[2], and so forth. Why not treat it as one of your > challenges and work it out? What will this tell me _intuitively_? P.S. look over at harmonic_entropy if you haven't lately.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5179 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 09:10:56 Subject: Re: Graham's Top Ten From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > What will this tell me _intuitively_? You need to start from knowing what something is before developing the intuition.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5180 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 09:52:22 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > Did you have a problem with the (s^2)*c or whatever rule that graham > used? When I use a s^2 c rule, I still get ennealimmal coming out on top. > Would you consider (2^s)*c? I tried that, and the best system turned out to be <49/48,25/24>, which is below your lower cut, and it gives me the impression that this is too extreme in the other direction. Best and worst were: <25/24,49/48> (Pretty much 6+4=10) 2^c s = 118.69 <2048/2025,4375/4374> (46,80,92 ets) 2^c s = 1.01 x 10^7.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5181 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:25:22 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > > > Did you have a problem with the (s^2)*c or whatever rule that > graham > > used? > > When I use a s^2 c rule, I still get ennealimmal coming out on top. What if you were to consider more complex unison vectors? You'd just keep finding better and better ones, wouldn't you? > > Would you consider (2^s)*c? > > I tried that, and the best system turned out to be <49/48,25/24>, > which is below your lower cut, How did that system get in there in the first place? Aren't there even better systems according to this criterion, say ones using 21/20 as a unison vector? > and it gives me the impression that > this is too extreme in the other direction. What else makes the top 10 with this criterion? > Best and worst were: > > <25/24,49/48> (Pretty much 6+4=10) > > 2^c s = 118.69 > > <2048/2025,4375/4374> (46,80,92 ets) > > 2^c s = 1.01 x 10^7. You mean 2^s c, not 2^c s?
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5182 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:29:33 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: Paul Erlich What about something like 2^(s/3)*c?
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5183 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:50:15 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > > --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > > When I use a s^2 c rule, I still get ennealimmal coming out on top. > What if you were to consider more complex unison vectors? You'd just > keep finding better and better ones, wouldn't you? It certainly looks that way, but I haven't even thought about a proof. > > > Would you consider (2^s)*c? > > > > I tried that, and the best system turned out to be <49/48,25/24>, > > which is below your lower cut, > > How did that system get in there in the first place? Aren't there > even better systems according to this criterion, say ones using 21/20 > as a unison vector? No doubt, but I started with cut-off in my list of generating commas of 49/48. > You mean 2^s c, not 2^c s? Sorry. Partial results for s^2c on my list of 66 temperaments are: 1. Ennealimmal, 33.46 2. <2401/2400, 3136/3125> system, 89.14 3. Miracle, 94.70 ... 65. [0 12] [0 19] [-1 28] [-1 34] 975.31 66. <2048/2025,4375/4374>, 1187.06
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5184 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 10:56:09 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: Paul Erlich Can you come up with a goodness measure for linear temperaments just as you did for ETs?
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5185 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 20:16:02 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > So it's the best 7-limit linear temperament ever discovered according > to steps^2 cents? I've got a new list of 505 temperaments, we'll see if anything beats it. However, it is what you might call a "capstone temperament" in the 7-limit. That is, it uses the two smallest superparticular commas to define itself. Similarly, meantone would be a linear temperament capstone in the 5-limit, and <3025/3024,4375/4374,9801/9800> a capstone for the 11-limit. Since 7 is the higher of a prime pair (5 and 7) its smallest superparticular commas are relatively small, so I suppose capstone temperaments in the 13-limit would be more to the point, and maybe planar or 3D more than linear.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5186 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 01:02:20 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > Can you come up with a goodness measure for linear temperaments just > as you did for ETs? Here's an estimate: if we have d odd primes, and two good ets of about size n, then the error in relative cents is on the order of n^(-1/d), which from the connection I showed between this and generator steps means that number of steps is on the order of n^(1-1/d). Since the error in relative cents is O(n^(-1/d)) for the ets, the error in absolute cents is O(n^(-1-1/d)). The shift from ets to linear temperaments leads to some improvement, so the error goes down, but it doesn't seem to go down a great deal. We end up with an estimate of (n^(1-1/d))^b * n^(-1-1/d) for step^b cents; this gives exponent zero for b = (d+1)/(d-1). This is infinity for d=1, where we have chains of perfect fifths, 3 for d=2 (5-limt), 2 for d=3 (7- limit), 5/3 for the 11-limit and so forth. I conclude that we can expect an infinite number of linear temperaments under some fixed limit in step^2 cents in the 7-limit, which seems to be the case. I suspect we will get no such thing for step^3 cents, since the improvement to linear temperaments seems unlikely to give that much. Here is what I got from my list of 66 temperaments for step^3 cents. Notice that ennealimmal temperament still does pretty well! (1) [2,3,1,-6,4,0] <27/25,49/48> ets: 4,5,9,14 measure: 210.36 (2) [4,2,2,-1,8,6] <25/24,49/48> ets: 4,6,10 measure: 294.93 (3) [4,4,4,-2,5,-3] <36/35,50/49> ets: 4,12,16,28 measure: 433.02 (4) [18,27,18,-34,22,1] <2401/2400,4375/4374> ets: 27,72,99,171,270,441,612 measure: 535.89 The first to pass Paul's lower cut is *still* ennealimmal. (5) [6,5,3,-7,12,-6] <49/48,126/125> ets: 4,15,19,34 measure: 642.89 ... (65) [12,12,-6,-19,19] <50/49,3645/3584> ets: 12, 48 measure: 9556.05 Fails Paul's strong TM condition. ets: 12,48 Map: [ 0 12] [ 0 19] [-1 28] [-1 34] (66) [2,-4,30,81,-42,-11] <2048/2025,4375/4374> ets: 46, 80 measure: 26079.25 What do you think? This one might work.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5187 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 20:27:33 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > Since 7 is the higher of a prime pair > (5 and 7) its smallest superparticular commas are relatively small, > so I suppose capstone temperaments in the 13-limit would be more to > the point, and maybe planar or 3D more than linear. Can you explain this sentence? I don't understand it at all.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5188 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 02:53:16 Subject: some tetrachordality results From: Carl Lumma All; I've implemented in scheme some of the stuff regarding the generalized tetrachordality measure that went around a while back. My procedure finds the mean absolute deviation of a scale from its transposition at 702 cents, first in scale order, then in any order. Specifically, I do a brute force note- to-note compare with all rotations of the notes of the transposed scale in the former case, permutations in the latter case, and return the minimum for each (source available). Scales in ()s are degrees of 12-tET. Values are mean cents deviation, rounded to the nearest cent. Pentatonic Scale (0 2 5 7 9) = 21, 21 1/1 9/8 4/3 3/2 27/16 = 18, 18 Diatonic Scale (0 2 4 5 7 9 11) = 16, 16 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 = 16, 16 Diminished chord (0 3 6 9) = 102, 102 Wholetone scale (0 2 4 6 8 10) = 102, 102 Diminished scale (0 2 3 5 6 8 9 11) = 50, 50 (0 1 3 4 6 7 9 10) = 102, 102 Minor scales w/'gypsy' tetrachord (0 1 4 5 7 8 11) = 44, 44 (0 1 4 5 7 8 10) = 44, 44 (0 1 4 5 7 9 10) = 44, 44 The issues I'd like to bring to your attention are: () Anybody care to compare results, or see any obvious bugs? Debugging always appreciated. () Different modes of a scale will give different results, as with the diminished scale above. I consider all "rotations", but I do not normalize the rotations to their tonics to get modes. Maybe I should? IOW, would we think omnitetrachordality could be used find stable modes of a scale? () Notice that the allowing permutations (2nd set of values) never lowers the score. So I either have a bug, or I don't need to fuss with permutations. Normally, we could lower the meandev. between these two... (1 2 3 10 11 12) (1 10 2 11 3 12) By allowing permutations, vs. enforcing neighboring order. However, maybe because I'm restricting myself to transpositions, this sort of situation never arises. Sound reasonable? -Carl
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5189 Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 21:09 +00 Subject: 21 note CS lattice From: graham@xxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx Here's a lattice for Paul's 21 note constant structure. 9^------5 / \ / 1 / 4 \ 7 / 0v------6v / \ / 0---3---6---9---2v--5v--8v \ / \ / 2 \ 8 / 1v\ 4v/ 7v \ / \ / 3v------9v 3, 9 and 5v are the only intervals of 11. Everything else is at the simplest 7-prime limit location. Here's the decimal translation: 6 1/1 7v 21/20 7 15/14 8v 9/8 8 8/7 9v 6/5 9 11/9 9^ 5/4 0v 21/16 0 4/3 1v 7/5 1 10/7 2v 3/2 2 32/21 3v 8/5 3 18/11 4v 12/7 4 7/4 5v 11/6 5 15/8 6v 63/32 6 2/1 Graham
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5190 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 04:56:25 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > What about something like > > 2^(s/3)*c? Oops -- I was actually thinking 2^(s^(1/3))*c . . . How does that look, Gene?
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5191 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 05:10:09 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > > > Can you come up with a goodness measure for linear temperaments > just > > as you did for ETs? > > Here's an estimate: if we have d odd primes, and two good ets of > about size n, then the error in relative cents is on the order of > n^(-1/d), which from the connection I showed between this and > generator steps means that number of steps is on the order of > n^(1-1/d). Since the error in relative cents is O(n^(-1/d)) for the > ets, the error in absolute cents is O(n^(-1-1/d)). The shift from ets > to linear temperaments leads to some improvement, so the error goes > down, but it doesn't seem to go down a great deal. Except in cases like ennealimmal, huh? > We end up with an > estimate of (n^(1-1/d))^b * n^(-1-1/d) for step^b cents; this gives > exponent zero for b = (d+1)/(d-1). This is infinity for d=1, where we > have chains of perfect fifths, 3 for d=2 (5-limt), 2 for d=3 (7- > limit), 5/3 for the 11-limit and so forth. > > I conclude that we can expect an infinite number of linear > temperaments under some fixed limit in step^2 cents in the 7-limit, > which seems to be the case. I suspect we will get no such thing for > step^3 cents, since the improvement to linear temperaments seems > unlikely to give that much. Does step^3 cents come out of one of the considerations above, or is it merely an arbitrary function that increases more rapidly than step^2 cents? > Here is what I got from my list of 66 > temperaments for step^3 cents. Notice that ennealimmal temperament > still does pretty well! > > (1) [2,3,1,-6,4,0] > <27/25,49/48> ets: 4,5,9,14 measure: 210.36 > > (2) [4,2,2,-1,8,6] > <25/24,49/48> ets: 4,6,10 measure: 294.93 > > (3) [4,4,4,-2,5,-3] > <36/35,50/49> ets: 4,12,16,28 measure: 433.02 > > (4) [18,27,18,-34,22,1] > <2401/2400,4375/4374> ets: 27,72,99,171,270,441,612 measure: 535.89 And you don't think an infinite number of even better ones would be found if we moved out further in the lattice? I really would like to cut the cord to the original list of unison vectors, if possible.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5192 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 05:38:16 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: The shift from > ets > > to linear temperaments leads to some improvement, so the error > goes > > down, but it doesn't seem to go down a great deal. > > Except in cases like ennealimmal, huh? Well, maybe it doesn't except when it does. :) If you are suggesting the actual critical exponent is going to be higher than 2, because of the improvement of linear temperament over ets, then I would not be surprised, but getting it all the way up to 3 is another matter, I think. The critical exponent is *at least* 2, however. > Does step^3 cents come out of one of the considerations above, or is > it merely an arbitrary function that increases more rapidly than > step^2 cents? It's an arbitary function of polynomial growth--using exponential growth I suspect to be overkill. > And you don't think an infinite number of even better ones would be > found if we moved out further in the lattice? All I've really argued for is that this will, indeed, happen if we use steps^2; I *think* steps^3 will kill it off eventually. I really would like to > cut the cord to the original list of unison vectors, if possible. On that note, I made up a list of 990 pairs of ets which I can use to seed things, but I'm waiting to see what to use for a cut-off.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5193 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 06:02:58 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > Except in cases like ennealimmal, huh? I've been looking at some extreme examples, concocted from high- powered ets in the 1000-10000 range, and it seems likely that 2 actually is the critical exponent, and pretty well certain that even if it isn't using steps^3 will lead to a finite list. Ennealimmal may just be exceptionally good.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5194 Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 13:44:32 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > > > Except in cases like ennealimmal, huh? > > I've been looking at some extreme examples, concocted from high- > powered ets in the 1000-10000 range, and it seems likely that 2 > actually is the critical exponent, and pretty well certain that even > if it isn't using steps^3 will lead to a finite list. Ennealimmal may > just be exceptionally good. So it's the best 7-limit linear temperament ever discovered according to steps^2 cents?
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5195 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 20:38:31 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > Can you explain this sentence? I don't understand it at all. It's simply conjecture on my part that the higher of a pair of twin primes should have a comparitively larger largest superparticular ratio associated to it than the lower, but I think I'll investigate it as a question in number theory.
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5196 Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 21:26:53 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > > > Can you explain this sentence? I don't understand it at all. > > It's simply conjecture on my part that the higher of a pair of twin > primes should have a comparitively larger largest superparticular > ratio associated to it than the lower, Assuming this is true, can you explain the sentence?
![]()
![]()
![]()
Message: 5197 Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2001 04:33:04 Subject: Re: Top 20 From: paulerlich Would you do the 5-limit too, that would be so cool!
4000 4050 4100 4150 4200 4250 4300 4350 4400 4450 4500 4550 4600 4650 4700 4750 4800 4850 4900 4950 5000 5050 5100 5150 5200 5250 5300 5350 5400 5450 5500 5550 5600 5650 5700 5750 5800 5850 5900 5950 6000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500 6550
5150 - 5175 -