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 76000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500 6550 6600 6650 6700 6750 6800 6850 6900 6950
6100 - 6125 -
Message: 6103 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 12:23:08 Subject: Re: A common notation for JI and ETs From: David C Keenan I earlier referred to a "uselessnes" figure-of-demerit for notational commas. This was obtained by multiplying the power of 3 in the comma (number of fifths) by the size of the comma in cents. I have since realised that for the purpose of our notation (or any notation based on a chain of best fifths) the ideal power of 3 in a comma is not zero, but ideal_power_of_three = 7 * size_of_comma / size_of_apotome or 7 * comma_in_cents / 113.685 This ideal value would ensure that the comma always represented the same fraction of an apotome irrespective of the size of the fifth. This can be used to show that a near-ideal half-apotome comma cannot exist. It would need to have 3 to the power of 3.5, but the power of 3 must be an integer. The best we could do is find a near 57 cent comma with 3^3 or 3^4, which is what we have in '|)) the 5:49 comma 392:405 (56.5 c). We can then define the "slope" of a comma as slope = actual_power_of_three - ideal_power_of_three For example (|( as the 5:11' comma 44:45 (38.9 c) has a slope of 2 - 7 * 38.9/113.7 = -0.4 which tells us that it should be extremely good at representing 2/7 of an apotome across a wide range of fifth sizes. In fact it works for ETs 49,56,63,70,77,84 and 91. I believe we should not use a comma for notating temperaments if it has an absolute value of slope greater than 8. The following have slopes between 7 and 8 and so I think they should also be avoided if possible '| as 5' comma ~|( as 7:13 comma |~ as 23 comma )|~ as 19' comma |)) as 49' diesis This also says that we should equally allow both '/|) as 7' diesis 57344:59049 and its apotome complement .(|\ as 7" diesis 27:28 as you first suggested, since they have slopes of 6.9 and -6.9. In fact true apotome complements always have the same absolute value of slope, but opposite signs. This suggests we modify "uselessness" to use slope instead of number of fifths. uselessness = ABS(slope) * size_of_comma but in fact I find uselessness fairly useless now, and I'm happy to simply limit the absolute slope to 8 and the comma size to 70.17 cents, the largest that could conceivably be notated as '((|
Message: 6105 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 05:50:09 Subject: Re: heuristic and straightness From: Carl Lumma >>>shortening the unison vectors makes the temperament worse, but >>>in a given temperament, this would be counteracted by an >>>increase in straighness, which makes the temperament better. >> >>You lost me. > >well, there are probably too many counterfactuals here. why don't >we start again with any examples from the archives which came up >in connection with straightness. your choice. Good idea. I did find some talk between you and Gene, referring to results I couldn't find. :( At one point, you mention low- badness blocks of one note... If you pick the example, I'm happy to attempt to build the block and find the alternate versions... no promises, though, since I'm new to this. If we get a good example or two, I'll collect everything and give you a URL. Bless you, monz, for doing this sort of thing. -Carl
Message: 6108 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:16:25 Subject: Re: Calculating geometric complexity and badness From: Carl Lumma > 5 limit > > In the 5 limit, if q = 2^u0 3^u1 5^u2 is a comma, > then [u0, u1, u2] is the wedgie That's all the wedgie is for a single comma? I take it this would be the chromatic uv in the linear case? > sqrt(log(3)^2 u1^2 + log(3)^2 u1 u2 + log(5)^2 u2^2) > > is the geometric complexity. Cool. I can do that. ;) > 11 limit > > Linear > > If > > p = 2^u0 3^u1 5^u2 7^u3 11^u4 > q = 2^v0 3^v1 5^v2 7^v3 11^v4 > r = 2^w0 3^w1 5^w2 7^w3 11^w4 > > are three intervals, You mean commas, right? > Spacial You the man, Gene! > Badness > > If r is error (usually rms error), c is complexity, n is the > number of primes in the p-limit (n=pi(p)) and d is the > codimension, which is to say the number of commas used to > define the temperament, Does it matter how many we temper out here? > then > > badness = r c^(n/d) > > is the log-flat badness measure. Great! I always thought the critical exponent had to be determined empirically. -Carl
Message: 6109 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:24:13 Subject: Re: heuristic and straightness From: Carl Lumma >>>>>shortening the unison vectors makes the temperament worse, >>>>>but in a given temperament, this would be counteracted by >>>>>an increase in straighness, which makes the temperament >>>>>better. >>>> >>>>You lost me. >>> >>>well, there are probably too many counterfactuals here. why >>>don't we start again with any examples from the archives >>>which came up in connection with straightness. your choice. >> >>Good idea. I did find some talk between you and Gene, >>referring to results I couldn't find. :( At one point, you >>mention low-badness blocks of one note... If you pick the >>example, I'm happy to attempt to build the block and find the >>alternate versions... no promises, though, since I'm new to >>this. > >what are we talking about, anyway? (no offence) I'm trying to figure out what you meant in the top paragraph, there... >>>>>shortening the unison vectors makes the temperament worse, If we heuristically ignore the sizes, then yes. >>>>>but in a given temperament, this would be counteracted by >>>>>an increase in straighness, which makes the temperament >>>>>better. ??? If straightness is maximal when the uvs are maximally orthogonal, how does this mean the uvs have gotten shorter? I thought it was a *decrease* in straightness that made the difference/sum vector shorten, making the temperament *worse*. Ultimately, I'm trying to figure out how changing the straigtness can make a temperament "worse" but keep badness constant. Either badness is broken or it doesn't! -Carl
Message: 6110 Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 20:31:10 Subject: Re: New file uploaded to tuning-math From: Carl Lumma Paul, These are tha bomb! -Carl
Message: 6112 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 19:18:51 Subject: Re: An 11-limit linear temperament top 100 list From: Carl Lumma >If we define "epimericity" for p/q > 1 reduced to its lowest >form as log(p-q)/log(q), Now we're talking. Looks a lot like the "cent" heuristic... >then as I suggested in Message 4458, Apparently, *then* we were talking. I remember reading that, too, but I just didn't have a clue where it was coming from. Now, I think I'm catching on. -Carl
Message: 6119 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:23:14 Subject: Re: Superparticular temperaments From: Carl Lumma >In the 5-limit case, it is clearly not so, unless we >think meantone is the last word. In the 7-limit case, >we do miss some important systems, but the inclusion >of some fairly obvious commas would catch them. // >There are 150 7-limit superparticular linear temperaments; I dunno Gene; looks like a bust to me. I wonder what other easy stuff can be done to fractions to study commas. There are jacks, but they're a subset of the above... While we would expect superparticulars to be the smallest intervals of a given complexity, there must be a cleaner way of doing this... has anything been done on 'badness for commas'? -C.
Message: 6120 Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2003 08:26:20 Subject: Re: Calculating geometric complexity and badness From: Carl Lumma I wrote.. > > In the 5 limit, if q = 2^u0 3^u1 5^u2 is a comma, > > then [u0, u1, u2] is the wedgie > > That's all the wedgie is for a single comma? I > take it this would be the chromatic uv in the > linear case? D'oh, I meant commatic. -C.
6000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500 6550 6600 6650 6700 6750 6800 6850 6900 6950
6100 - 6125 -