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).

8000
8050
8100
8150
8200
8250
8300
8350
8400
8450
**8500**
8550
8600
8650
8700
8750
8800
8850
8900
8950

8500 -
**8525 -**

Message: 8525 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 19:38:13 Subject: Re: Finding the complement From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:>> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> >> wrote:>>> Does it use alphabetical >>> ordering of indices? >>>> In the case of the trivector, yes -- and I would have thought that's >> all that matters here. Surely the question of whether 1 is the dual >> of its dual is independent of this ordering question? >> You would expect so. > >> All the>> directly tuning-interpretable results of Grassmann algebra should be >> independent of this ordering question, and the cross-product is, >> thank goodness. Maybe the question of whether 1 is the dual of its >> dual is not intepretable in tuning terms. >> Hmmm. This is rather mystifying. I'm afraid I'm just going to go with > Browne's Euclidean complement and forget the GABLE "dual". Two reasons. > (a) GABLE is clearly not concerned with any dimension greater than 3. > (b) GABLE is "geometric algebra" which appears to be Grassman algebra > using "homogeneous" coordinates. This is where they add one more > component to the vector than there are dimensions in the space, so > they can distinguish points from vectors, or some such.Hmm? In GABLE there are eight components to every object, the basis being (to within signs){1,e1,e2,e3,e1^e2,e2^e3,e1^e3,e1^e2^e3}.

Message: 8526 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 07:26:27 Subject: Re: Finding the wedge product? From: monz --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>> Oops. Something went missing near the end there. It should have been: >> Can you post the entire corrected thing? > > -C.i've already done it here: Definitions of tuning terms: val, (c) 2001 by ... * [with cont.] (Wayb.) Gene, can you give me the rigorous mathematical definition as well? -monz

Message: 8527 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 20:37:57 Subject: Re: Finding the complement From: Graham Breed Dave Keenan wrote:> (b) GABLE is "geometric algebra" which appears to be Grassman algebra > using "homogeneous" coordinates. This is where they add one more > component to the vector than there are dimensions in the space, so > they can distinguish points from vectors, or some such.Oh, geometric algebra. Here are some pages about it: Introduction to Geometric Algebra || kuro5hin.org * [with cont.] (Wayb.) Introduction to Geometric Algebra (part two) |... * [with cont.] (Wayb.) It's similar to Grassman algebra, but not the same. Graham

Message: 8528 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 07:28:31 Subject: Re: Definition of val etc. From: monz --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>>> transpose >>> A very good point which had completely slipped my mind in all this >> heavy mathematics. >> It isn't usually used as a noun in music. And where there are > collisions the math terminology should probably be favoured because > it's more precise. > > -CarlCarl, that's an extremely good point ... in fact, musicians *never* use "transpose" as a noun, calling a transposed part either a "transposed part" or (most often) a "transposition". "transpose" is strictly a verb in musical usage. still, i want to put both definitions (the musical verb and the mathematical noun) into the Dictionary, since both have something to do with tuning. -monz

Message: 8529 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:02:19 Subject: Re: Definition of val etc. From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:> I don't get it. I thought what I was trying to do was exactly this - - > identify a bivector with a pseudovector -- or was what you were > objecting to in the correspondence with bra and ket vectors?I don't recall trying to identify anything with a pseudovector; the complement allows the identification of m-kets with (n-m)-bras, which is useful for tuning purposes. It would> really be nice if you could lay out all these terminologies for us in > a slow, 'breathable' way. I'd like to gain a geometrical grasp on all > this, and to help others do the same. The physics document above > appeared to have notions with a striking resemblance to those I > created in explaining the Hypothesis.That looked fine to me, and had the usual physicist's explanation of a linear form/functional (aka dual vector, bra vector, etc.) in terms of parallel spaces the vector pierces. I saw nothing in it about pseudovectors.

Message: 8530 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 08:57:15 Subject: Re: Finding the wedge product? From: Graham Breed Dave Keenan wrote:> Here's one that does > Permutation Parity by Lou Piciullo * [with cont.] (Wayb.) > > It's very simple and designed for pencil and paper. It is much less > error-prone than trying to count how many index-swaps you need to get > to alphabetical/numerical order. It should be fairly easily adapted to > whatever data-structure is used for the compound indices.I think that's equivalent to the one I'm using, which I got from a group theory book. (Actually, the book gave a slightly different algorithm, presumably what Gene meant by "product of differences". But that's less efficient because multiplication's harder than addition.) def equivalentValue(base, value): """alternative algorithm that avoids the evil bubblesort""" for i in range(len(base)-1): for j in range(i+1, len(base)): if base[j]<base[i]: value = -value return value And here's the same kind of thing in C, from another program I happen to be working on: int odd_permutation(const int board[N_CELLS]) { int i, j, total=0; for (i=0; i<N_CELLS-1; i++) { for (j=i+1; j<N_CELLS; j++) { total += board[i] > board[j]; } } return total % 2; } It's still an O(n**2) algorighm, so there's no huge saving over bubble sorting and counting swaps, especially if you want the result sorted anyway. Graham

Message: 8531 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:03:47 Subject: Re: Finding the complement From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> > wrote:>> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> >> wrote: >> >> Maybe the question of whether 1 is the dual of its>>> dual is not intepretable in tuning terms. >>>> It's a part of the standard convention allowing us to define how > the>> complement is going to work--e1^e2^...^en is taken to define volume > 1. >> So is GABLE just wrong?If it isn't calling e1^...^en a 1, it isn't right for our purposes.

Message: 8532 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 21:18:21 Subject: Re: Finding the complement From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> If it isn't calling e1^...^en a 1, it isn't right for our purposes.Calling it a 1? Isn't it an n-vector, not a scalar?

Message: 8533 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:18:32 Subject: Re: Finding the complement From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> > wrote: >>> If it isn't calling e1^...^en a 1, it isn't right for our purposes. >> Calling it a 1? Isn't it an n-vector, not a scalar?Right, but the complement is a 1.

Message: 8534 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 22:37:47 Subject: Re: Finding the complement From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> > wrote:>> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" > <gwsmith@s...> >> wrote: >>>>> If it isn't calling e1^...^en a 1, it isn't right for our > purposes. >>>> Calling it a 1? Isn't it an n-vector, not a scalar? >> Right, but the complement is a 1.As you may have seen, GABLE defines the dual as division by e1^e2^e3. division is in the sense of the so-called 'geometric product'. Is the geometric product non-existent and/or meaningless in Grassmann algebra?

Message: 8535 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 00:40:08 Subject: Re: Finding the wedge product? From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>>> That's great Graham. I think I get it now. Let me try feeding it > back>>> in a different way so you can tell me if I've got it right, and so >>> others may have another chance at following it. >>>> Thanks Dave. Can someone confirm this? I'm about to take it as >> Gospel. >> It looked good to me.Thanks Gene. I'll bet there were lots of mathematical nits you could have picked, with my presentation, so I really appreciate a simple response like this. And I expect Carl does too. Thanks for all your help in getting us to this point.

Message: 8536 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2003 02:15:37 Subject: Re: Finding the wedge product? From: Dave Keenan It would be nice to have a shortcut to avoid actually doing all those index position swaps to find the sign of each product of scalars. We already have such a shortcut rule when calculating the complement, namely sum the indexes plus Ceiling(grade/2) and negate if odd. But that's no use for the wedge product. We want a simple function of the (possibly compound) indexes of the two coefficients, that gives us the sign of the result. We can write the two indices as I = {i1 i2 i3 ...} and J = {j1 j2 j3 ...} where the i's and j's are integers (simple indices). Note that the compound-indices are rightly represented as sets since the order of their elements doesn't matter, and we never have duplicates, _within_ each compound-index. These sets could be implemented efficiently on a computer as a bit-array or bit-set with a one-bit for each simple index that's in the set. 16 bits would be plenty for any conceivable tuning application. These could either be carried around with the coefficients or computed as needed, given the grade and the number of coefficients, or grade and dimension. The condition for throwing away the product (of coefficients), can then be expressed as I * J =/= {}, where "*" is set-intersection. i.e. Throw it away if there is any simple index common to both sets. And the index of the product is I + J, where "+" is set-union. Now what's the simplest algorithm to give us the sign of the product given those two index sets, in the right order?

Message: 8539 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 19:05:25 Subject: Re: a beautiful geometric algebra paper From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Kees van Prooijen" <lists@k...> wrote:> Also, I have collected most of all geometric algebra papers available > on the net (aprx. 27 Mb) which I will gladly put on my website for a > while if there's interest.What would be nice to find would be a simple, straightforward exposition of the basics of exterior algebra, without all the bells and whistles. The heavily mathematical books I use won't cut it, Browne has far more complexity than we need, and geometric algebra intoduces stuff I don't think we can use.

Message: 8540 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:07:38 Subject: Re: Finding Generators to Primes etc From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul G Hjelmstad" <paul.hjelmstad@u...> wrote:> Another question - is it possible to go from 3 to 1, without going > through 2?Yes -- in the two-ET case, the period will be 1/n octaves where n is the greatest common divisor of the two ET cardinalities, and the generator will be in the vicinity of the best-matching other interval between the two ETs. For example, for 12&19, the period is 1 octave, while the best other match is between 5/12 oct. and 8/19 oct., so the generator is near these values. For 12&22, the period is 1/2 octave, and the best other match is between 1/12 oct. and 2/22 oct., so the generator is near these values. The mapping from *this* period and generator to primes should be identical for both ETs, and this carries over to the '&'.> Also, do you always need 2 commas (in the 5-limit) to get > Generators to Primes?No, with one comma you get a so-called 'linear temperament' (or 2D temperament -- one period and one generator), just as you get from 12&19 or 12&22 above. I know you've seen this before, but on each row in this table: Yahoo groups: /tuning/database? * [with cont.] method=reportRows&tbl=10&sortBy=3 The single comma is described in the first five columns, the period and optimal generator are shown in the eighth column, and the mapping from period and generator to primes is shown in the ninth column. 81:80 corresponds to the 12&19 case above, and 2048:2025 corresponds to the 12&22 case above. The comma is more unique, since 12&19 might be written 19&31, etc., 12&22 might be written 22&34, etc. . . .

Message: 8541 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:12:12 Subject: Re: a beautiful geometric algebra paper From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Kees van Prooijen" <lists@k...> > wrote: >>> Also, I have collected most of all geometric algebra papers > available>> on the net (aprx. 27 Mb) which I will gladly put on my website for > a>> while if there's interest. >> What would be nice to find would be a simple, straightforward > exposition of the basics of exterior algebra, without all the bells > and whistles. The heavily mathematical books I use won't cut it, > Browne has far more complexity than we need, and geometric algebra > intoduces stuff I don't think we can use.the fact that different references appear to contradict one another is the worst part of all.

Message: 8542 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:33:12 Subject: Re: Finding Generators to Primes etc From: Graham Breed Paul G Hjelmstad wrote:> Another question - is it possible to go from 3 to 1, without going > through 2? Also, do you always need 2 commas (in the 5-limit) to get > Generators to Primes?It's possible to do anything you like without commas, unless it explicitly involves commas. If you're using commas, you need 2 of them to get a 5-limit equal temperament. What's 3 to 1, a linear temperament to a pair of equal temperaments? The usual mapping of primes to generators already gives you this. They may be bizarre equal temperments, with 1 or 0 notes to the octave. But you can add them together to get a different 1 note equal temperment. And then add the two 1s to get a 2 note temperament. And so on, as far as you like. Graham

Message: 8543 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 20:33:29 Subject: Re: Finding Generators to Primes etc From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:> The usual mapping of primes to generatorsgenerators to primes?

Message: 8544 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:40:01 Subject: Re: Finding Generators to Primes etc From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:> may be bizarre equal temperments, with 1 or 0 notes to the octave.A good reason to call them vals.

Message: 8545 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:42:13 Subject: Re: Finding Generators to Primes etc From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote: >>> The usual mapping of primes to generators >> generators to primes?Graham's way of saying it really makes more sense. We have a mapping h, for which h(2) gives the number of generator steps to 2, h(3) to 3, and so forth.

Message: 8546 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 23:37:29 Subject: Re: Finding Generators to Primes etc From: Dave Keenan Graham: ...>> may be bizarre equal temperments, with 1 or 0 notes to the octave. Gene:> A good reason to call them vals.Or single-generator mappings. But whether he called them mappings or vals he would still have wanted to say that they can be considered as mappings or vals _for_ equal temperaments, albeit bizarre ones. And that linear combinations of them are all that is needed to give you mappings for more reasonable ETs. I had not realised that. Thanks Graham.

Message: 8547 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 01:38:26 Subject: Re: Finding the wedge product? From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:> It's still an O(n**2) algorighm, so there's no huge saving over bubble > sorting and counting swaps, especially if you want the result sorted > anyway.Right, but if you use a fixed-length bitset implementation of the compound indices (e.g. 32 bits) then there's no requirement for sorting. You just OR them together to get the compound index of the result. And the parity algorithm is then only O(n) and consists of shifts and ANDs followed by XORing the parity of the number of 1 bits in the results. I guess this is still O(n*log(n)) unless you have an O(1) bitwise parity operation. Otherwise bitwise parity will need to be implemented as log(n) shifts and xors. Here's some pseudo-C-code. long function Parity(long i, j) /* Where i and j representing the two compound indices as bitsets */ result = 0 for n = 1 to 31 i >>= 1 result ^= bitParity(i & j) next n return result long function bitParity(long i) i ^= i>>1 i ^= i>>2 i ^= i>>4 i ^= i>>8 i ^= i>>16 i &= 1 return i

Message: 8548 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 03:40:57 Subject: Re: Finding the complement From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:>> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> >> wrote:>>> Does it use alphabetical >>> ordering of indices? >>>> In the case of the trivector, yes -- and I would have thought that's >> all that matters here. Surely the question of whether 1 is the dual >> of its dual is independent of this ordering question? >> You would expect so. > >> All the>> directly tuning-interpretable results of Grassmann algebra should be >> independent of this ordering question, and the cross-product is, >> thank goodness. Maybe the question of whether 1 is the dual of its >> dual is not intepretable in tuning terms. >> Hmmm. This is rather mystifying. I'm afraid I'm just going to go with > Browne's Euclidean complement and forget the GABLE "dual". Two reasons. > (a) GABLE is clearly not concerned with any dimension greater than 3. > (b) GABLE is "geometric algebra" which appears to be Grassman algebra > using "homogeneous" coordinates. This is where they add one more > component to the vector than there are dimensions in the space, so > they can distinguish points from vectors, or some such.In any case, could such considerations argue that we should make standard use of, as defined in section 6.9 or pp. 32-37 and motivated further down here, Index of /homes/browne/grassmannalgebra/book/b... * [with cont.] (Wayb.) TheInteriorProduct.pdf the (generalized) cross-product?

Message: 8549 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 04:28:34 Subject: Re: Finding the complement From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:> As you may have seen, GABLE defines the dual as division by e1^e2^e3. > division is in the sense of the so-called 'geometric product'. Is the > geometric product non-existent and/or meaningless in Grassmann > algebra?Geometric algebra in some sense encompasses Grassmann algebra, but not in a way that strikes me as useful for our purposes. Even more general are Clifford algebras, which is what algebraists are most interested in; but again, I don't see a payoff.

8000
8050
8100
8150
8200
8250
8300
8350
8400
8450
**8500**
8550
8600
8650
8700
8750
8800
8850
8900
8950

8500 -
**8525 -**