About this archive This is an opt in archive. To add your posts click here and send e-mail: tuning_archive@rcwalker.freeserve.co.uk.
S 2

First Previous Next Last

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 -


top of page bottom of page down

Message: 5150

Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 23:54:19

Subject: Re: Graham's Top Ten

From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx

--- In tuning-math@y..., graham@m... wrote:

> It might be interesting to try other methods, but the problem I'd 
like you 
> to set your mind to is going from the map to the simplest set of 
unison 
> vectors.  That's something that's not working currently.  I can go 
from 
> unison vectors to maps no problem.

One way to do this would be to treat the unison vector problem in the 
exact same way as the generator map problem. We can find the wedge 
invariant from the map by taking the wedge product of the column 
vectors, and directly from the wedge invariant we can read off a 
5-limit unison vector. We then can find the exponent of 7 for the 
other unison vector via the gcd of the exponents of the first, and 
the rest using the requirement that the wedge invariant is invariant.
Once we have this pair of vectors we should have something which we 
can readily reduce further via LLL and Minkowski reduction.

How well would this work? Why don't you give a list of hard examples 
and we'll see.


top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5151 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:11:39 Subject: Re: reduced basis for MIRACLE temperament? From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > Can you think of a reason anyone would want to look at LLL rather > than Minkowski? Not in this case; in higher prime limits Minkowski will become increasingly difficult to compute.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5152 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 20:27:03 Subject: Hey Gene From: Paul Erlich May I anticipate any attempts to answer the other questions I've asked you lately?
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5153 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 22:54:46 Subject: Re: Hey Gene From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > May I anticipate any attempts to answer the other questions I've > asked you lately? What were they? I somtimes lose track of outstanding questions, and sometimes decide I don't want to pursue something at the moment, and sometimes think I'll get around to it eventually anyway in the course of the survey or whatever.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5154 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:04:32 Subject: Re: Hey Gene From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > > > May I anticipate any attempts to answer the other questions I've > > asked you lately? > > What were they? Yahoo groups: /tuning-math/message/1570 * for instance.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5155 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 00:29:22 Subject: Re: reduced basis for MIRACLE temperament? From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > Is the TM-reduced basis for the MIRACLE linear temperament in the 11- > limit > > {225/224, 243/242, 384/385}?? That's what I get, as well as {225/224, 441/440 and 540/539} as an LLL reduced basis.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5156 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 18:13:05 Subject: Re: reduced basis for MIRACLE temperament? From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > > > Is the TM-reduced basis for the MIRACLE linear temperament in the > 11- > > limit > > > > {225/224, 243/242, 384/385}?? > > That's what I get, as well as {225/224, 441/440 and 540/539} as an > LLL reduced basis. Can you think of a reason anyone would want to look at LLL rather than Minkowski?
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5157 Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 20:28:38 Subject: Re: Survey X From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > When I mentioned it before, as two interlaces diatonic scales, each > completing the other's triads into tetrads, you seemed interested and > said you'd print it out. My printer ran out of ink, and I haven't replaced it. I needed to print out your 22-et paper mostly, and I presume this isn't in there. What would I print out here?
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5158 Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 20:51:11 Subject: Re: RMS mean generators? From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > Why not the root-mean-square of the deviations from zero? Good point--the list was supposed to cover the reciprocals also, so that we got the entire vertex figure, and the mean would be zero. I'd better go change things.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5159 Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 00:50:24 Subject: Re: Graham's Top Ten From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > > It's simply a way of trying to interpret what the area defined by > the > > paralleogram of two generators or two vals--which is an invariant > of > > the temperament--means in some rough sense. Since area is > assoicated > > to counts of lattice points in the coordiante projections of this > > paralleogram, it seemed a reasonable way to look at it. > Confused. Can you give a low-limit example? Let's try 50/49^64/63 = [-2,4,4,-2,-12,11] We have, in the above order: 5-7: -2 [2 -2]^(-1) [1/2 -1] [0 -1] = [ 0 -1] The determinant is -2, corresponding to the first entry, so we have two classes in the block of 5-7 equivalence classes. Using the inverse matrix columns, we can calculate a block based on 0<=u<1, 0<=v<1 where u = i/2 and v = -i-j. The block turns out to be <1, 5/7> 7-3: 4 [ 0 2]^(-1) [ 1/2 0] [-1 -2] = [-1/4 0] Block: <1,7,1/3,7/3> 3-5: 4 Block <1,5,1/3,5/3> 2-3: -2 Block <1,3> 2-5: -12 Block: <1,2,4,8,16,32,10,20,40,80,160,320> 2-7: 11 Block: <1,2/7,4/7,8/7,16/7,32/7,4/49,8/49,16/49,32/49,64/49> Fodder for some kind of product set here, perhaps. > > I count the number of generator steps of the non-octave generator to > > {3,5,7,5/3,7/3,7/5}, take the mean and then the root-mean-square of > > the deviations from the mean, and finally multiply > > Multiply what? The mean or the root-mean-square of the deviations > from the mean? RMS of deviations from mean.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5160 Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 08:30:09 Subject: Survey X From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx Not a very exciting list this time. <64/63,875/864> Minkowski reduction: <64/63,250/243> Wedge invariant: [-3,-5,6,28,-18,-1] length = 34.3366 Ets: 7,8,15,22,37,59 Map: [ 0 1] [-3 2] [-5 3] [ 6 2] Generators: a = .1353148451 = 5.006649269 / 37; b = 1 Errors and 37-et: 3: 10.91 11.56 5: 1.80 2.88 7: 5.44 4.15 Measures: 42.461 sc, 264.793 s2c Pretty much 22+15=37 if someone wants to try sharp fifths. <64/63, 4375/4374> Wedge invariant: [4,9,-8,-44,24,5] length = 51.9423 Ets: 7, 27 Map: [ 0 1] [ 4 1] [ 9 1] [-8 4] Generators: a = .14788728 = 3.99295636 / 27; b = 1 Errors and 27-et: 3: 7.90 9.16 5: 10.87 13.69 7: 11.46 8.95 Measures: 71.962 sc; 694.499 s2c This would be excluded by Paul's criterion, and it doesn't seem like a big loss. <50/49, 81/80> Wedge invariant: [2,8,8,-4,-7,8] length = 16.1555 Ets: 12, 26, 38 Map: [0 2] [1 2] [4 0] [4 1] Generators: a = .578042519 (~3/2) = 15.02910557 / 26; b = 1/2 Errors and 26 et: 3: -8.30 -9.65 5: -11.71 -17.08 7: 5.78 0.40 Measures: 33.657 sc; 100.970 s2c Paul has apparently played with this oddball temperament, and Graham has it on his catalog page as "Double Negative". <81/80, 875/864> Minkowski reduction: <81/80, 525/512> Wedge invariant: [1,4,-9,-32,17,4] length = 37.7757 Ets: 7,19,26,45 Map: [ 0 1] [ 1 1] [ 4 0] [-9 8] Generators: a = .577880065 (~3/2) = 26.00460293 / 45; b = 1 Errors and 45-et: 3: -8.50 -8.62 5: -12.49 -12.98 7: -9.93 -8.83 Measures: 52.276 sc; 357.112 s2c An alternative septimal meantone for those who like flat systems.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5161 Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 09:51:35 Subject: Orwell = Miracle + Meantone From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx The heading is slightly deceptive, because it refers to adding wedge invariants, which are only determined up to sign, but it gives the idea. The wedge invariant represents each 7-limit linear temperament by a pair of 6-dimensional lattice points, of opposite sign. Hence, we can add and subtract wedge invariants, or in general take linear combinations, and produce new linear temperaments. I tried this with Miracle and Meantone with the above result. In particular, Meantone = [1,4,10,12,-13,4] and Miracle = [6,-7,-2,14,20,-25]. The sum gives us [7,-3,8,27,7,-21] and the difference [-5,11,12,-3,-33,29]. The sum is Orwell, but the difference was not on my list; by finding a reduced set of commas from the wedge invariant, I get that it is <225/224,50421/50000>, where the second comma has a Tenney height too high to make the cut. It seems like a pretty good system anyway; it is basically the 29+2 system (also 31+29) with a generator close to 7/5.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5162 Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 12:03:00 Subject: Miracle + Ennealimmal From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx I thought I'd try another one of these. The two systems I obtained in this way are: <2401/2400, 19683/19600> Wedge invariant: [12,34,20,-49,2,26] length = 69.1448 Ets: 58,72,130 Map: [ 0 2] [ 6 7] [17 7] [10 4] Generators: a = .0693055608 = 9.00972229 / 130; b = 1/2 Errors and 130-et: 3: -.955 -.417 5: -.147 1.376 7: -.493 .405 Measures: 8.9154 sc; 132.4036 s2c <2401/2400,15625/15552> Wedge invariant: [24,20,16,-19,42,-24] length = 62.7136 Map: [ 0 4] [-6 18] [-5 19] [-4 19] Generators: a = .4857631578 (~7/5) = 68.00684209 / 140; b = 1/4 Measures: 11.4125 sc; 147.7268 s2c
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5163 Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 19:33:31 Subject: RMS mean generators? From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > > > I count the number of generator steps of the non-octave generator > to > > > {3,5,7,5/3,7/3,7/5}, take the mean and then the root-mean- square > of > > > the deviations from the mean, and finally multiply > > > > Multiply what? The mean or the root-mean-square of the deviations > > from the mean? > > RMS of deviations from mean. Why not the root-mean-square of the deviations from zero?
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5164 Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 19:36:35 Subject: Re: Survey X From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > Ets: 12, 26, 38 > > Map: > > [0 2] > [1 2] > [4 0] > [4 1] > > Generators: a = .578042519 (~3/2) = 15.02910557 / 26; b = 1/2 > > Errors and 26 et: > > 3: -8.30 -9.65 > 5: -11.71 -17.08 > 7: 5.78 0.40 > > Measures: 33.657 sc; 100.970 s2c > > Paul has apparently played with this oddball temperament, and Graham > has it on his catalog page as "Double Negative". When I mentioned it before, as two interlaces diatonic scales, each completing the other's triads into tetrads, you seemed interested and said you'd print it out.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5165 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 20:41:35 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? Just what I was thinking of--my stuff on goodness of ets connecting to goodness of generator steps should allow for an estimate, and hence a more rational measure.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5166 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 04:25:05 Subject: List cut-off point From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx I looked at the step-cents of the 7-limit temperaments on my list, and they range from 2.09 for ennealimmal to 99.5 for the system [0 12] [0 19] [1 28] [1 34] One possibility on the low end is therefore to set 100 sc as the cut-off; which would leave us needing something else on the high end.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5167 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 06:08:21 Subject: double-diatonic system (in 26-tET) From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > > > When I mentioned it before, as two interlaces diatonic scales, each > > completing the other's triads into tetrads, you seemed interested > and > > said you'd print it out. > > My printer ran out of ink, and I haven't replaced it. I needed to > print out your 22-et paper mostly, and I presume this isn't in there. It is mentioned. > What would I print out here? >Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1998 17:30:43 -0500 >From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@A...> >To: "'tuning@e...'" <tuning@e...> >Subject: Assymmetrical 14-tone modes in 26-tET >Message-ID: <85B74BA01678D211ACDE00805FBE3C050B6587@M...> > >I decided to look at the modes of the assymmetrical scale 0 2 4 6 8 10 >12 14 15 17 19 21 23 25 in 26-tET -- because all octave species of this >scale is constructed of two identical heptachords, each spanning a ~4/3, >separated by either a ~4/3 or a ~3/2; and because the scale contains 10 >consonant 7-limit tetrads constructed by the generic scale pattern 1, 5, >9, 12 (5 are otonal and 5 are utonal) with a maximum tuning error of 17 >cents. > >In my paper, I introduce the notion of a charateristic dissonance. This >is a dissonant interval which is the same generic size (same number of >scale steps) as a consonant interval. Allowing the 7-limit to define >consonance and allowing errors up to 17 cents, the 14-out-of-26 scale >has three characteristic dissonances (plus their octave inversions and >extensions). Two are "sevenths" of 554 cents instead of the usual 508 >cents, and one is an "eighth" of 554 cents instead of the usual 600 >cents. > >None of the modes of this scale satisfy all the properties for a >strongly tonal mode according to my paper. But a few come close. The >mode > >0 2 4 6 8 10 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 > >or in cents, > >0 92 185 277 369 462 508 600 692 785 877 969 1062 1154 > >has all characteristic dissonances disjoint from the tonic tetrad (0 8 >15 21), which is major. The only other mode with this property is the >minor equivalent: > >0 2 4 5 7 9 11 13 15 16 18 20 22 24 > >or in cents > >0 92 185 231 323 415 508 600 692 738 831 923 1015 1108. > >The following modes have one characteristic dissonance which shares a >note with the tonic tetrad, but it approximates the 1 identity and the >11 identity when played along with the tetrad. Therefore the interval >does not disturb the stability of the tonic too much, and the mode can >be considered tonal: > >major: 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 13 15 17 19 21 23 24 > >or in cents > >0 92 185 277 369 462 554 600 692 785 877 969 1062 1108 > >and > >minor: 0 2 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 18 20 22 24 > >or in cents > >0 92 138 231 323 415 508 600 692 785 831 923 1015 1108.
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5168 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 06:12:33 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote: > I looked at the step-cents of the 7-limit temperaments on my list, > and they range from 2.09 for ennealimmal to 99.5 for the system > > [0 12] > [0 19] > [1 28] > [1 34] > > One possibility on the low end is therefore to set 100 sc as the > cut-off; which would leave us needing something else on the high end. s means scale size and c means error? Did you have a problem with the (s^2)*c or whatever rule that graham used? Would you consider (2^s)*c? Or s*(2^s)*c? The latter should _not_ need a high-end cutoff, as the number of possibilities will be finite (if my brain is working right) . . .
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5170 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 06:28:24 Subject: Re: Graham's Top Ten From: Paul Erlich I wrote, > > Confused. Can you give a low-limit example? Gene wrote, > Let's try 50/49^64/63 = [-2,4,4,-2,-12,11] Oh dear . . . how about a couple of 5-limit examples?
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5171 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 06:59:29 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > s means scale size and c means error? s means steps and c means cents, so sc are units of step-cents. > Did you have a problem with the (s^2)*c or whatever rule that graham > used? I had no problem with it beyond failing to interpret the units; however it weighs the smaller systems more heavily, which might be a good idea from the point of view of practicality. Would you consider (2^s)*c? Or s*(2^s)*c? The latter should > _not_ need a high-end cutoff, as the number of possibilities will be > finite (if my brain is working right) . . . I'd consider anything, but 2^s sounds ferocious!
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5172 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 07:05:45 Subject: Re: List cut-off point From: Paul Erlich --- 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!
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5173 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 07:08:10 Subject: Re: Graham's Top Ten From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx --- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote: > Oh dear . . . how about a couple of 5-limit examples? In the 5-limit, the wedge product becomes the cross-product. The cross-product of two ets gives the intersection of the kernels, and the cross-product of two commas gives the common et. So, it's not the same. In the 11-limit, the wedge product of two ets gives a 10-dimensional vector which represents a linear temperament, and of two commas a 10- dimensional vector which represents a planar temperament, so we don't have something betwixt and between. Wedging three ets gives a 10- dimensional planar temperament invariant, which can be compared to two commas, and three commas gives a linear temperament invariant, as with two ets. I could go on and describe the 13-limit, but the point is the best way to get a handle on the 7-limit is to look at it, not at the 5-limit!
top of page bottom of page up down Message: 5174 Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 07:09:53 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: > > > Oh dear . . . how about a couple of 5-limit examples? > > In the 5-limit, the wedge product becomes the cross-product. The > cross-product of two ets gives the intersection of the kernels, and > the cross-product of two commas gives the common et. So, it's not the > same. > > In the 11-limit, the wedge product of two ets gives a 10- dimensional > vector which represents a linear temperament, and of two commas a 10- > dimensional vector which represents a planar temperament, so we don't > have something betwixt and between. Wedging three ets gives a 10- > dimensional planar temperament invariant, which can be compared to > two commas, and three commas gives a linear temperament invariant, as > with two ets. I could go on and describe the 13-limit, but the point > is the best way to get a handle on the 7-limit is to look at it, not > at the 5-limit! I'm trying to get an _intuitive_ handle on it . . . sigh . . . better get those math books you mentioned!
top of page bottom of page up

First Previous Next Last

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 -

top of page