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 98000 8050 8100 8150 8200 8250 8300 8350 8400 8450 8500 8550 8600 8650 8700 8750 8800 8850 8900 8950
8300 - 8325 -
Message: 8306 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 04:30:48 Subject: Re: Vals? 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: > > > But if I've made a serious mistake I really need to know: > > What do the integers [the val's coefficients] represent in tuning > > terms? What are they counting? > > They can be counting different things; steps of an equal temperament, > number of octaves, number of generators, But these are all temperament "generators" in its most general sense. As I said. > exponent of a particular > prime number Now I'm really confused. I thought these were called monzos, not vals.
Message: 8307 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 05:24:36 Subject: Re: Vals? 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 agree it's awkward. Carl objected so vehemently to EDO and I > wanted > > to reserve ET for the most general term (including EDOs ED3s cETs). > > Perhaps this would be a misuse of ET. Do we have some other term for > > the most general category of 1D temperaments, i.e. any single > > generator temperament whether or not it is an integer fraction of > any > > ratio? I guess "1D-temperament" will do. > > Not 1D. These are 0-dimensional temperaments, I'm afraid. Yes. You're right. Of course I was coming from the mathematical standpoint. Either way, we have descending dimensions planar temperaments, linear temperaments, <then what?> temperaments?
Message: 8308 Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 05:29:14 Subject: Re: Vals? From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> > wrote: > > > not sure how gene would do this notationally, probably i did > > something terrible, but without it i could not have made those > > charts . . . > > It's a special case of the wedge product, and I'd notate it that way. So the wedge product is a generalisation of the 3D Cartesian product or cross product. Awesome! There are really some light-bulbs coming on in my head today. :-) Thanks Gene.
Message: 8309 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 18:21:39 Subject: Re: Vals? From: monz hi Graham, --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote: > monz wrote: > > > unfortunately, i have no clue what "bivectors" and > > "trivectors" are. > > A bivector will be the wedge product of two vectors, > and a trivector the wedge product of three vectors. OK, thanks. i knew that they referred to two and three of something. now if only i understood what a "wedge product" is ... i understand it intuitively, but not mathematically. > A bi-val must be the wedge product of two vals. > If I can get it the right way round this time > > <12 19 28] ^ <22 35 51] = [-11 4 2> > > you can see that this particular bi-vector is the same > as a monzo. But it only works in the 5-limit. A more > familiar equation should be > > <12 19 28] ^ <19 30 44] = [-4 4 -1> > > so the intersection of 12-equal and 19-equal is a > linear temperament in which the syntonic comma vanishes. > In general terms, you can write that > > <h12] ^ <h19] = <<meantone]] > > where <<meantone]] is a bi-val defining some kind of meantone. thanks so much for this! it's *much* clearer now! > > <snip> > > so the general equation for linear temperaments can be written > > <<lintemp]] ^ [octave> = +/- <mapping] > > And, if you're really daring, you can even get rid of the ^ > > <<lintemp]][octave> = +/- <mapping] > > > I don't know if anybody's following this, but I think > the multi-bra notation makes it clearer than anything > we've had before. yes, i totally agree. i couldn't follow the part of your post which i snipped, or that last bit quoted above, but the new notation *is* helping a lot. using plain terms like "meantone" and "meantone7" also helps. -monz
Message: 8311 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:50:03 Subject: Re: Vals? From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote: > > > >But yeah. What do others think? Square brackets or vertical > > >bars (pipes)? > > > > I don't care, but I think we should standardize. > > I'd also suggest that, unless we specify otherwise, a 3D val or monzo > is 5-limit, a 4D val or monzo 7-limit, etc. and that the basis for > the n-multimonzos is ordered so that they correspond to the (n-pi(p))- > multivals. That, at least, is how I wrote my software. Yes. I totally agree. It is unfortunate that John Browne didn't do it that way. See chapter 2 page 18 Grassmann Algebra Book * Although he does mention complementary bases. I assume your "pi()" function is the prime index function where pi(2) = 1, pi(3) = 2, pi(5) = 3, etc. So does this mean that since a 5-limit monzo has coefficients [e2 e3 e5> then a 5-limit bimonzo has coefficients ordered [[e35 e52 e23>> where the subscripts indicate the primes referred-to in the basis? And the same with maps and bimaps (vals and bivals). And since a 7-limit monzo has coefficients [e2 e3 e5 e7> then a 7-limit trimonzo will have coefficients ordered [[[e357 e572 e723 e235>>>. Is this how your software does it too Graham? But how do you order the coefficents of a 7-limit bimonzo or bimap (bival) so it's its own complement???
Message: 8312 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:07:15 Subject: Re: Vals? From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote: >> If you only temper out two [7-limit] commas, you get a linear temperament. > > |-4 4 -1> ^ |2 2 -1 -1> = 7-limit meantone. I'd have added the zero to the end to make it [-1 4 -1 0> just to keep things clear. > I don't know how to write linear temperaments as bras, ... Here's an idea. Use << ... ]] for a linear temperament (bivector), <<< ... ]]] for a planar temperament (trivector) etc. So we have a Pascal's triangle of covariant-multivector (multival) types like this (where the number indicates how many coefficients there are). ,vals 1 , ' ,bivals 1-limit 1 <1] , ' ,trivals 2-limit 1 <2] <<1]] , ' 3-limit 1 <3] <<3]] <<<1]]] 5-limit 1 <4] <<6]] <<<4]]] <<<<1]]]] 7-limit 1 <5] <<10]] <<<10]]] <<<<5]]]]<<<<<1]]]]] 11-limit etc. And I would have thought we'd have this for the contravariant multivectors (multimonzos). ,monzos 1 , ' ,bimonzos 1-limit 1 [1> , ' ,trimonzos 2-limit 1 [2> [[1>> , ' 3-limit 1 [3> [[3>> [[[1>>> 5-limit 1 [4> [[6>> [[[4>>> [[[[1>>>> 7-limit 1 [5> [[10>> [[[10>>> [[[[5>>>>[[[[[1>>>>> 11-limit etc. However it seems that, at least in our application, we have 1 1-limit 1 1 2-limit 1 <2] 1 3-limit 1 <3] [3> 1 5-limit 1 <4] <<6]] [4> 1 7-limit 1 <5] <<10]] [[10>> [5> 1 11-limit where those on the midline could go either way. Why is that? I thought they had incomensurable bases. One lot has units of "log-prime" and the other "per-log-prime". e.g. Why is a 5-limit bi-val a monzo?
Message: 8313 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:09:33 Subject: Re: Vals? From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote: > Dave Keenan wrote: > > > So the wedge product is a generalisation of the 3D Cartesian product > > or cross product. Awesome! There are really some light-bulbs coming on > > in my head today. :-) Thanks Gene. > > No, it's the other way around. The 3-D dot and cross products are > special cases of Grassman algebra, which came first. I wasn't implying any history. If B is a special case of A then A is a generalisation of B. But thanks for the history.
Message: 8314 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:18:09 Subject: Re: Vals? 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: > > > > exponent of a particular > > > prime number > > > > Now I'm really confused. I thought these were called monzos, not > vals. > > The mapping which for any rational number gives the p-exponent of > that rational number is called a padic valuation, and is the basis > for the vals in the same way that prime numbers are the basis for > monzos. So what I said was correct. Putting it another way, more in engineering terminology that pure math, the "units" for the coefficients of a monzo are the logs of the respective primes, and the "units" for the coefficients of the vals (in our application) or prime-mappings are "generators per log prime" so that the dot product of a val and a monzo has units of simply "generators".
Message: 8315 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:20:45 Subject: Re: Vals? 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: > > > So the wedge product is a generalisation of the 3D Cartesian product > > or cross product. Awesome! There are really some light-bulbs coming > on > > in my head today. :-) Thanks Gene. > > You've got it. It also defines the determinant, come to that. Right. I reread John Browne's Introduction to Grassman Algebra and it's making a lot more sense this time.
Message: 8316 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:42:06 Subject: Re: Vals? 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: > > > The square brackets alook more enclosing, and can't be mistaken for > a one. > > I'm happy either way. Paul? What does a physics major think? Hey I majored in Physics too (as well as Comp Sci). :-) I learned the Dirac notation in second year Quantum Physics, from the Feynman Lectures Volume III. But that _was_ a long time ago. When I just looked at that book again now. You hardly ever see < .. | or |.. > alone, but usually < ... | ... >. Also, you hardly ever see actual numbers inside, usually variables, so the issue of confusion of | with 1 or it's lack of visual enclosingness (is that a word?) don't arise. But yeah. What do others think? Square brackets or vertical bars (pipes)?
Message: 8320 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:38:07 Subject: Re: Vals? From: monz --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote: > monz wrote: > > > i sure wish i knew what the hell this was all about. > > especially since my name is being used as a term all thru it. > > > > you guys (Gene, paul, Dave) lost me on this long ago. > > but it sure seems interesting. > > We've established that the wedge product of two monzos > corresponds to the temperament in which they vanish. So, > with Gene's notation, a comma > and diaschisma give 12-equal. > > |-4 4 -1> ^ |-11 4 2> = <12 19 28| > > Well, on top of that, you can temper out 36:35, or |2 2 -1 -1> > > |-4 4 -1> ^ |-11 4 2> ^ |2 2 -1 -1> = <12 19 28 34| > > Which, to check with my Python module: > > >>> from temper import Wedgie as Monzo > >>> syntonic = Monzo((-4,4,-1)) > >>> diaschisma = Monzo((-11,4,2)) > >>> septimal = Monzo((2,2,-1,-1)) > >>> (syntonic^diaschisma^septimal).complement().flatten() > (12, 19, 28, 34) > > If you only temper out two commas, you get a linear temperament. > > |-4 4 -1> ^ |2 2 -1 -1> = 7-limit meantone. > > I don't know how to write linear temperaments as bras, but > there are some things you can show. For example, an > octave equivalent mapping is like tempering out the octave. > > >>> octave = Monzo((1,0,0)) > >>> (syntonic^septimal^octave).complement().flatten() > (0, 1, 4, -2) > > which means > > |-4 4 -1> ^ |2 2 -1 -1> ^ |1 0 0> = <0 1 4 -2| > > and (1 4 -2) is the octave-equivalent mapping for this > particular version of meantone, where C-Bb approximates 4:7, > rather than C-A#. For the more accurate one, you can do > > |-4 4 -1> ^ |1 2 -3 1> ^ |1 0 0> = <0 1 4 10| thanks, Graham ... this helps a lot! -monz
Message: 8321 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:40:42 Subject: Re: Vals? From: monz --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote: > > [Dave Keenan:] > > But yeah. What do others think? Square brackets or vertical > > bars (pipes)? > > I don't care, but I think we should standardize. > > -Carl i think the best solution is to use square brackets for the bra and ket when written separately, and to use the pipe when they're put together. bra <...] ket [...> braket <...|...> didn't someone just suggest that yesterday? -monz
Message: 8322 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:43:56 Subject: Re: Vals? From: monz --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> > wrote: > > > Here's an idea. Use << ... ]] for a linear temperament > > (bivector), <<< ... ]]] for a planar temperament (trivector) > > etc. > > That's a thought. I haven't seen this notation ever used, > but it is logical. i'll second the notational idea, because i can see the logic in it. unfortunately, i have no clue what "bivectors" and "trivectors" are. > > And I would have thought we'd have this for the contravariant > > multivectors (multimonzos). > > If we fix a prime limit, we have duality between multivals > and multimonzos; in the 7-limit, a bival and a bimonzo can > be identified. > In the 11-limit, bivals and 4-monzos, and bimonzos and 4-vals, > can be identified, as can trivals with trimonzos. This > involves changing the basis of the n-monzos to make them > numerically correspond to the (pi(p)-n)-vals. My approach > to all this has been to swap the n-monzo for the corresponding > (pi(p)-n)-val, and use that, but this does require we fix > a prime limit. > > > e.g. Why is a 5-limit bi-val a monzo? > > The above duality. It isn't, except if you make the > identification. oh dear ... Graham, i was beginning to understand this stuff after your last post, but now i'm hopelessly lost again. help! -monz
Message: 8323 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 09:46:49 Subject: Re: Vals? From: monz hi Gene, --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > I'd also suggest that, unless we specify otherwise, a 3D val > or monzo is 5-limit, a 4D val or monzo 7-limit, etc. and that > the basis for the n-multimonzos is ordered so that they > correspond to the (n-pi(p))-multivals. That, at least, is > how I wrote my software. i'll second these suggestions. but even tho i understand your last sentence, what's (n-pi(p)) ? -monz
Message: 8324 Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 11:23:06 Subject: Re: Vals? From: Graham Breed monz wrote: > unfortunately, i have no clue what "bivectors" and "trivectors" > are. A bivector will be the wedge product of two vectors, and a trivector the wedge product of three vectors. >>>e.g. Why is a 5-limit bi-val a monzo? >> >>The above duality. It isn't, except if you make the >>identification. > > oh dear ... Graham, i was beginning to understand this stuff > after your last post, but now i'm hopelessly lost again. help! A bi-val must be the wedge product of two vals. If I can get it the right way round this time <12 19 28] ^ <22 35 51] = [-11 4 2> you can see that this particular bi-vector is the same as a monzo. But it only works in the 5-limit. A more familiar equation should be <12 19 28] ^ <19 30 44] = [-4 4 -1> so the intersection of 12-equal and 19-equal is a linear temperament in which the syntonic comma vanishes. In general terms, you can write that <h12] ^ <h19] = <<meantone]] where <<meantone]] is a bi-val defining some kind of meantone. I've previously shown the usual 7-limit case [-4 4 -1 0> ^ [1 2 -3 1> = <<meantone7]] so combining the two equations gives <12 19 28 34] ^ <19 30 44 53] = [-4 4 -1 0> ^ [1 2 -3 1> where a bi-val happens to equal a bi-monzo. Here's the Python to check with: >>> import temper >>> h12 = temper.BestET(12, temper.limit7) >>> h19 = temper.BestET(19, temper.limit7) >>> syntonic = temper.Wedgie((-4, 4, -1)) >>> septimal = temper.Wedgie((1, 2, -3, 1)) >>> h12^h19 == ~(syntonic^septimal) 1 >>> h12 [12, 19, 28, 34] >>> h19 [19, 30, 44, 53] understanding the bi-val <<meantone]] itself is difficult, but you should always be able to get the octave-equivalent mapping by taking the wedge product with the octave <<meantone]] ^ [1,0...> = +/- <0, 1, 4, ...] Here's how you calculate it: >>> octave = temper.Wedgie((1,)) >>> (octave^(h12^h19).complement()).complement().flatten() (0, -1, -4, -10) There are two ways of doing the left hand side. Firstly, you could take the complement of the octave, which will be a tri-val. <<meantone]] ^ <<<octave_complement]]] = ???? in fact, this is illegal, because you can't have a 5-val in 4-space. So instead, we have to take the complement of <<meantone]] which is a bi-monzo [[meantone_complement>> ^ [1,> = [[[mapping_complement>>> In this space, the complement of a tri-monzo is a val, so we can say that [[[mapping_complement>>> = <mapping] = -<0 1 4 10] As the dimensions don't always make it unique, it may be worth specifying whether to take the complement of the left or right hand side in an operation involving mixed bras and kets. And probably coercing to the right hand side would make more sense, because I think the brakets usually give the right results then when the results are scalars. That is <et|interval> = steps to interval or <primes|interval> = size of interval always give positive numbers for an ascending interval. The calculation is as follows: Take the complement of [interval> to get a multi-val Multiply this by <primes] to get an even multi-er val Take the complement of this to get a scalar. so the general equation for linear temperaments can be written <<lintemp]] ^ [octave> = +/- <mapping] And, if you're really daring, you can even get rid of the ^ <<lintemp]][octave> = +/- <mapping] I don't know if anybody's following this, but I think the multi-bra notation makes it clearer than anything we've had before. Graham
8000 8050 8100 8150 8200 8250 8300 8350 8400 8450 8500 8550 8600 8650 8700 8750 8800 8850 8900 8950
8300 - 8325 -