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).

6000
6050
6100
6150
6200
6250
6300
6350
6400
6450
6500
6550
6600
6650
6700
6750
6800
6850
**6900**
6950

**6900 -**
6925 -

Message: 6900 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 21:41:01 Subject: Re: Interval Database Experiences From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "monz" <monz@a...> wrote: >>> you were never very specific about what's wrong >> with it. >> What I mean by a "microtemperament" is something like this: one where > all of the relevant consonant intervals are within a cent of being > pure. What you've defined is a regular temperament of dimension > greater than or equal to one, so I think it should not be used as a > definition of microtemperament.agreed, though what monz (actually graham) defined in the first attempt is that the dimension must be *higher* than that of a linear temperament. but he appears to be willing to take that back further down on the page. this definition page is a huge mess! the final quote on the page should be attributed to graham, not to me. he's clearly not sticking to his original attempt at a definition, so why should it be on the top of the page? if this dictionary is to be of use to anyone, we have to eliminate the nonsense or at least relegate it to some back pages.

Message: 6901 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:16:44 Subject: Re: Fried Alaska From: Carl Lumma>>>> >nd for any given brat, you can get arbitrarily close to JI. >>>>>> Oh yeah? Then brats are nonsense, I say. >> >> wha??? >>At the least it means we'd need to consider the error as well >as the brat -- brats alone would not be reliable.Ironically, you use this sort of reasoning against prime limit all the time. -Carl

Message: 6902 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 22:24:07 Subject: Re: Fried Alaska From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>>>>> and for any given brat, you can get arbitrarily close to JI. >>>>>>>> Oh yeah? Then brats are nonsense, I say. >>> >>> wha??? >>>> At the least it means we'd need to consider the error as well >> as the brat -- brats alone would not be reliable. >> Ironically, you use this sort of reasoning against prime limit > all the time.you're replying to yourself here. what sort of reasoning? let's see the analogy fleshed out.

Message: 6903 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 15:52:12 Subject: Re: Fried Alaska From: Carl Lumma>>> >t the least it means we'd need to consider the error as well >>> as the brat -- brats alone would not be reliable. >>>> Ironically, you use this sort of reasoning against prime limit >> all the time. >>you're replying to yourself here. Yeah... >what sort of reasoning? let's see the analogy fleshed out.There are ratios of low prime limit that are quite dissonant. There are chords indistinguishable from just with very high brats. I dunno, the sort of reasoning that looks at the function over the pitch continuum and sees if there are anomalies. -Carl

Message: 6904 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 23:06:12 Subject: Re: Fried Alaska From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>>>> At the least it means we'd need to consider the error as well >>>> as the brat -- brats alone would not be reliable. >>>>>> Ironically, you use this sort of reasoning against prime limit >>> all the time. >>>> you're replying to yourself here. > > Yeah... >>> what sort of reasoning? let's see the analogy fleshed out. >> There are ratios of low prime limit that are quite dissonant. > There are chords indistinguishable from just with very high brats.i thought were were talking about well-temperaments with low, but rational, brats? you obviously don't care what the brat is for any chord close enough to just -- it's the significantly tempered ones where brats may or may not be meaningful. also, it's not the lowness of the brat, it's the simplicity of the ratio.

Message: 6905 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:24:36 Subject: Re: Fried Alaska From: Carl Lumma>i thought were were talking about well-temperaments with low, >but rational, brats?We were, but I suggested we compare bare chords instead of temperaments, because that's what the assumption about the larger tunings is based on.>you obviously don't care what the brat is for any chord close enough >to just -- it's the significantly tempered ones where brats may or >may not be meaningful. Apparently so. >also, it's not the lowness of the brat, it's the simplicity of tRight; I've just been saying lowness. By simplicity, don't we mean something like the Van Eck widths? -Carl

Message: 6906 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 16:27:16 Subject: Re: Fried Alaska From: Carl Lumma>> >ou obviously don't care what the brat is for any chord close enough >> to just -- it's the significantly tempered ones where brats may or >> may not be meaningful. > >Apparently so.Also, if we replace "just" with "interval x" in Gene's statement, brats are completely useless without some sort of tolerance adjustment, like we use for odd limit. -Carl

Message: 6907 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 23:48:20 Subject: Re: Fried Alaska From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:> i thought were were talking about well-temperaments with low, but > rational, brats? you obviously don't care what the brat is for any > chord close enough to just -- it's the significantly tempered ones > where brats may or may not be meaningful. also, it's not the lowness > of the brat, it's the simplicity of the ratio.A brat of, say, -1 close to just will simply beat very slowly in sync. As for your second point, infinity happens to be a very nice brat.

Message: 6908 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 19:21:27 Subject: Re: Fried Alaska From: Carl Lumma>> >y simplicity, don't we mean something like the Van Eck widths? >>That's tough to answer without knowing what a Van Eck width is,I found gcdb by the way, but have no idea how it works. The Van Eck width of ratio Ri is log(R(i-1))-log(R(i+1)), where Ri is, say, the ith ratio in a Farey series of order n. Unfortunately, I guess these widths just shrink to nothing as n goes to infinity. The harmonic entropy based on them, however, converges to a finite value.>but the rules of simplicity are these: > >(1) q and -q, 1/q, and -1/q are equally simple. In particular, 0 and >infinity are equally simple. > >(2) To judge how simple q is, you need to look at how simple 5/(3-2q) >and (3-2q)/5q are as well. > >(3) Low numerators and denominators are better than high ones; >bearing in mind that infinity = 1/0 counts as low.Since we have no idea what's supposed to make one brat better than another, I suppose this is fine. -Carl

Message: 6909 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 18:48:31 Subject: harmonic entropy (was: Re: Fried Alaska) From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus" > <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote: > >> ok? >> No; how do you sum over row infinity of the Farey sequence?first of all, carl and i both had errors. carl's definition was wrong because the width goes from mediant to mediant. my probability definition was wrong because i only included the height term but forgot to multiply by the aforementioned width to get the area under the curve! now, row infinity? it's the farey, or mann, or tenney series of order n. n and s are the two parameters of the harmonic entropy function, plus you get to choose farey/mann/tenney/etc., and you get to choose bell/Vos.

Message: 6910 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:09:35 Subject: harmonic entropy (was: Re: Fried Alaska) From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:> > now, row infinity? it's the farey, or mann, or tenney series of order > n. n and s are the two parameters of the harmonic entropy function, > plus you get to choose farey/mann/tenney/etc., and you get to choose > bell/Vos.Does harmonic entropy seem to converge to a continuous function as n goes to infinity?

Message: 6911 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:17:32 Subject: harmonic entropy (was: Re: Fried Alaska) From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus" > <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote: >>>> now, row infinity? it's the farey, or mann, or tenney series of > order>> n. n and s are the two parameters of the harmonic entropy function, >> plus you get to choose farey/mann/tenney/etc., and you get to > choose >> bell/Vos. >> Does harmonic entropy seem to converge to a continuous function as n > goes to infinity?it's continuous for any n.

Message: 6912 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:19:04 Subject: harmonic entropy (was: Re: Fried Alaska) From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus" > <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote: >>>> now, row infinity? it's the farey, or mann, or tenney series of > order>> n. n and s are the two parameters of the harmonic entropy function, >> plus you get to choose farey/mann/tenney/etc., and you get to > choose >> bell/Vos. >> Does harmonic entropy seem to converge to a continuous function as n > goes to infinity?as n goes to infinity, the "shape" seems to converge, but it gets taller and flatter. if we had some suitable way to correct for the tallness and flatness as a function of n, we might be able to define a function which indeed converges to a limit as n goes to infinity. this is my hope, as i communicated to you some time ago.

Message: 6913 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:23:13 Subject: harmonic entropy (was: Re: Fried Alaska) From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> > wrote:>> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus" >>>> >>> now, row infinity? it's the farey, or mann, or tenney series of >> order>>> n. n and s are the two parameters of the harmonic entropy > function,>>> plus you get to choose farey/mann/tenney/etc., and you get to >> choose >>> bell/Vos. >>>> Does harmonic entropy seem to converge to a continuous function as > n>> goes to infinity? >> as n goes to infinity, the "shape" seems to converge, but it gets > taller and flatter. if we had some suitable way to correct for the > tallness and flatness as a function of n, we might be able to define > a function which indeed converges to a limit as n goes to infinity. > this is my hope, as i communicated to you some time ago.i actually made some inroads into acheiving this, but without any sort of mathematical insight or proof. i recommend you spend some time looking over the harmonic entropy archives, they are quite short compared to those of other lists. and let's continue the discussion there, shall we?

Message: 6914 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:30:11 Subject: harmonic entropy (was: Re: Fried Alaska) From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:>> Does harmonic entropy seem to converge to a continuous function as > n>> goes to infinity? >> it's continuous for any n.Yes, but does it converge uniformly for increasing n?

Message: 6915 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:31:33 Subject: harmonic entropy (was: Re: Fried Alaska) From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:> as n goes to infinity, the "shape" seems to converge, but it gets > taller and flatter. if we had some suitable way to correct for the > tallness and flatness as a function of n, we might be able to define > a function which indeed converges to a limit as n goes to infinity. > this is my hope, as i communicated to you some time ago.Ah. Somehow I had the idea that you were claiming it did, and I didn't see it.

Message: 6916 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:32:50 Subject: harmonic entropy (was: Re: Fried Alaska) From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:> i actually made some inroads into acheiving this, but without any > sort of mathematical insight or proof. i recommend you spend some > time looking over the harmonic entropy archives, they are quite short > compared to those of other lists. and let's continue the discussion > there, shall we?Why is there such a list?

Message: 6917 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:42:54 Subject: Re: harmonic entropy (was: Re: Fried Alaska) From: Carl Lumma>Why is there such a list?Rather than ask a question like that, why not accept it with the rest of these miserable lists, and go there, where I've already forwarded this thread, so as to commingle it with the extremely valuable archives there? -Carl

Message: 6918 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 20:43:25 Subject: harmonic entropy (was: Re: Fried Alaska) From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus" > <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote: >>> i actually made some inroads into acheiving this, but without any >> sort of mathematical insight or proof. i recommend you spend some >> time looking over the harmonic entropy archives, they are quite > short>> compared to those of other lists. and let's continue the discussion >> there, shall we? >> Why is there such a list?it began quite some time before this list began. there were quite a few harmonic entropy postings on the tuning list, which made certain people very upset. so it became its own list. much later, the "big split" occurred. it was suggested that harmonic_entropy be combined with this list, but i saw no way of doing that.

Message: 6919 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:18:02 Subject: that name again is harmonic_entropy From: Carl Lumma For those of you following along at home... Yahoo groups: /harmonic_entropy/ * [with cont.] -C.

Message: 6920 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 00:04:31 Subject: Re: Fried Alaska From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:> By simplicity, don't we mean something like the Van Eck widths?That's tough to answer without knowing what a Van Eck width is, but the rules of simplicity are these: (1) q and -q, 1/q, and -1/q are equally simple. In particular, 0 and infinity are equally simple. (2) To judge how simple q is, you need to look at how simple 5/(3-2q) and (3-2q)/5q are as well. (3) Low numerators and denominators are better than high ones; bearing in mind that infinity = 1/0 counts as low.

Message: 6921 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 05:21:42 Subject: Re: Fried Alaska From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:> I found gcdb by the way, but have no idea how it works.One attempt to automate the judgment of goodness is all it is.> The Van Eck width of ratio Ri is log(R(i-1))-log(R(i+1)), where > Ri is, say, the ith ratio in a Farey series of order n.Great! Now someone should be able to write down a formula for harmonic entropy in terms of the function VE(r).

Message: 6922 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 05:46:26 Subject: Re: Fried Alaska From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>>> By simplicity, don't we mean something like the Van Eck widths? >>>> That's tough to answer without knowing what a Van Eck width is,it's actually quite similar to tenney height, as i showed on the harmonic entropy list.

Message: 6923 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 05:57:17 Subject: Re: Fried Alaska From: wallyesterpaulrus --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>> I found gcdb by the way, but have no idea how it works. >> One attempt to automate the judgment of goodness is all it is. >>> The Van Eck width of ratio Ri is log(R(i-1))-log(R(i+1)), where >> Ri is, say, the ith ratio in a Farey series of order n.or a "tenney series", or whatever.> Great! Now someone should be able to write down a formula for harmonic > entropy in terms of the function VE(r).for a logarithmic interval q, the unnormalized probability of hearing it as ratio r, P(q,r), is UP(q,r)=e^-((log(r)-q)^2/2s) [for bell-curve entropy] or UP(q,r)=e^-(|(log(r)-q)|/s) [for Vos-curve entropy] where s parameterizes one's hearing resolution. the probability is simply the normalized probability divided by the sum of the unnormalized probabilities: P(q,r)=UP(q,r)/SUM(UP(q,r)) where the sum takes r over all possible values within the farey, tenney, whatever series in question. then the harmonic entropy of interval q, HE(q), is SUM[P(q,r)*log(P(q,r))] r ok?

Message: 6924 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 08:13:02 Subject: Re: Fried Alaska From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:> ok?No; how do you sum over row infinity of the Farey sequence?

6000
6050
6100
6150
6200
6250
6300
6350
6400
6450
6500
6550
6600
6650
6700
6750
6800
6850
**6900**
6950

**6900 -**
6925 -