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**

**8950 -**
8975 -

Message: 8950 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 15:52:13 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Carl Lumma>> >erhaps it has something to do with using this to get >> optimum generators for a linear temperament? >>Well, that's exactly what this does (when the dimensionality is >right), as I've illustrated already in a few cases. > >Here's something new -- Top meantone is, it seems, exactly 1/4-comma >meantone (I get 0.24999999999997, but that's probably just rounding >error) except a uniform (in cents, or log Hz) stretch of >1.00141543374547 is applied to all intervals . . .Is the formula for that particularly hard?>> And I don't understand your 'limitless' claim -- since p/q contains >> the factors it does and no others, one wouldn't expect its vanishing >> to effect > >affect?Yes, I think so... :)>> intervals different factors. >>intervals with different factors? Well, 5:4 and 5:3 have *some* >factors differing from those in the Pythagorean comma, yet both >intervals are affected by its vanishing, in this scheme.But not 7:5, right? -Carl

Message: 8951 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:31:00 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Carl Lumma>>> >ow, for all primes r, >>> >>> If p contains any factors of r, the r-rungs in the lattice (which >>> have length log2(r)) are shrunk from >>> cents(r) >>> to >>> cents(r) - log2(r)*cents(p/q)/log2(p*q). >>> If q contains any factors of 2, they are instead stretched to >>> cents(r) + log2(r)*cents(p/q)/log2(p*q). >>>> Thanks. I understand this 100%. But I don't understand what's >> new. >>Where have you seen this before?I guess in my head.>> Perhaps it has something to do with using this to get >> optimum generators for a linear temperament? >>Well, that's exactly what this does (when the dimensionality is >right), as I've illustrated already in a few cases.What if the generator isn't a just interval? Then isn't it still the same kind of multivariable optimization that you guys have been using all along?>> And I don't understand your 'limitless' claim -- since p/q contains >> the factors it does and no others, one wouldn't expect its vanishing >> to effectWhat I mean is, when extending meantone to a 7-limit mapping, it will naturally implicate different commas and change the optimal generator a bit, same as before. Well, we can't be sure until we see how to combine commas. But to claim it doesn't require a limit when it's currently limited to linear temperaments in the 5-limit... Or am I all wet? -Carl

Message: 8952 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 19:41:12 Subject: Re: Meantone reduced blocks From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > >>> The>>> meatone reduction therefore is >>> >>> 7i - 12(round(i/3) + round(i/4+1/8)) >>>> Please express this meantone scale in conventional letter-name- and- >> accidental notation. >> Here is the scale in terms of meantone fifths: > > [0, 7, -10, -3, 4, -1, -6, 1, -4, 3, -2, -7] > > Using an "f" for my flat symbol, here it is in sharps and flats: > > [C, C#, Eff, Ef, E, F, Gf, G, Af, A, Bf, Cf] > > > I'm not sure yet how uncommon this sort of thing is, but probably not > very common. There is only one possible {128/125, 648/625} scale up to > transposition, and one question is what other comma pairs give us > something differing from Meantone[12] on reduction.Have you found any that don't reduce to something other than: Meantone[12] Diaschismic[12] Augmented[12] Diminished[12] when tempered accordingly?

Message: 8953 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:28:05 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Graham Breed Me:>> I thought this was all assumed by your hypothesis anyway. Paul:> I don't see the relationship. Fromerror = comma size / complexity using Tenny complexity, for a comma n:d: error = log(n/d) / log(n*d) = log[1 + (n-d)/d] / log[(n/d)*d*d] The base of the logarithms doesn't matter, so we can use log(1+x) ~ x as (n-d)/d will be small for a comma. so this is much the same as error = [(n-d)/d]/[log(d*d) + log(n/d)] = (n-d)/d/2/log(d) + 1/d as it happens. The 1/d term is small and can be neglected, giving error = (n-d)/[2d*log(d)] The heuristic error given here: Definitions of tuning terms: heuristic error, ... * [with cont.] (Wayb.) is |n-d|/(R*log(R)) for commas as usually written, the numerator is larger than the denominator, so the |n-d| is the same as (n-d). Depending on whether n or d is even, R may be the same as D. If it isn't exactly the same, it's going to be close because commas tend to be small (and have to be for the simplification to work) which means the numerator and denominator are of roughly equal size. The factor of 2 is disposable, as this isn't measuring anything in particular. So they look pretty similar to me.> Yes, but for octave equivalence (pegged to 1200 cent octaves), I'd > like to eventually be able to use Kees's expressibility measure > instead of Tenney harmonic distance. Just as there was no > finitistic 'limit' assumed for my 'optimization' in the Tenney > lattice, no odd limit will have to be specified in the octave- > equivalent case (if it can work).I don't see why it shouldn't work mathematically. Whether it has any musical meaning is a different matter. But why shouldn't it work? You temper each factor in whichever of n and d is odd, or the larger if they both are.>> As geometric complexity looks like >> being an octave-specific weighted complexity measure, this may be > the>> way to progress. >> What do you mean?Odd limits are a simplification so that we always get whole numbers, and can think octave equivalently. The geometric complexity Gene gave, as far as I could understand it, was naturally continuous and octave specific. So if it makes it easier to work that way, we can, and go back to odd limits for the fine tuning.>> The problem remains knowing how best to combine these commas to get > a>> temperament of a specific dimension. For that we need a > straightness>> measure, as always. > >> That's why I was asking about heron's formula, etc. But if we have > some way of acheiving this Tenney-weighted minimax for the relevant > temperaments, we may be able to skip this step.I don't see how we can skip the step of combining commas. How could it make sense to do so? Graham

Message: 8954 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:46:47 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:> Me:>>> I thought this was all assumed by your hypothesis anyway. > > Paul:>> I don't see the relationship. > > From >> error = comma size / complexity > > using Tenny complexity, for a comma n:d: > > error = log(n/d) / log(n*d) > = log[1 + (n-d)/d] / log[(n/d)*d*d]Oh, you mean "heuristic", not "hypothesis" (the latter concerns PBs and DEs).>> Yes, but for octave equivalence (pegged to 1200 cent octaves), I'd >> like to eventually be able to use Kees's expressibility measure >> instead of Tenney harmonic distance. Just as there was no >> finitistic 'limit' assumed for my 'optimization' in the Tenney >> lattice, no odd limit will have to be specified in the octave- >> equivalent case (if it can work). >> I don't see why it shouldn't work mathematically. Whether it has any > musical meaning is a different matter. But why shouldn't it work? You > temper each factor in whichever of n and d is odd, or the larger if they > both are.Hmm . . . I'm a bit busy right now, so can you work out an example, and show all the errors like I did with Top meantone here?>>> As geometric complexity looks like >>> being an octave-specific weighted complexity measure, this may be >> the>>> way to progress. >>>> What do you mean? >> Odd limits are a simplification so that we always get whole numbers, and > can think octave equivalently. The geometric complexity Gene gave, as > far as I could understand it, was naturally continuous and octave > specific. So if it makes it easier to work that way, we can, and go > back to odd limits for the fine tuning.I'll have to put this aside for later digestion . . .>>> The problem remains knowing how best to combine these commas to get >> a>>> temperament of a specific dimension. For that we need a >> straightness>>> measure, as always. >> >>>> That's why I was asking about heron's formula, etc. But if we have >> some way of acheiving this Tenney-weighted minimax for the relevant >> temperaments, we may be able to skip this step. >> I don't see how we can skip the step of combining commas. How could it > make sense to do so?I meant skip the step of getting a straightness measure. If we get the right straightness measure, it won't matter which kernel basis we pick for a given temperament. In which case we may be able to proceed directly from the kernel to the relevant quantities. But I wouldn't stress it at the moment . . . Thanks for being you!

Message: 8955 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:35:26 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Graham Breed Paul Erlich wrote:> Maybe someone can derive this 0.24999999999997 as a 1/4 symbolically. > I'd be very happy to see it.1.0014154337454717 you say? Yes, I've derived it symbolically -- which means I must have duplicated your method for tempering. That magic number is 2*log(81)/log(81*80). The calculation goes something this: The 2 generator is tempered as cents(2)[1+k] The 3 generator is tempered as cents(3)[1-k] The 5 generator is tempered as cents(5)[1+k] where k is log(81/80)/log(81*80). The + or - depends on whether factors of this prime occur in the denominator or numerator respectively. So as 2 and 5 are just in quarter comma meantone, they must be stretched by 1+k here. In quarter comma meantone, the 3 generator is tempered as cents(3) - cents(81/80)/4 = cents(3) - cents(81)/4 + cents(80)/4 = cents(3) - cents(3) + cents(80)/4 = cents(80)/4 so the stretch from that to its new tempered value is cents(3)[1-k]/[cents(80)/4] = 4*cents(3)([1-k]/cents(80) = [1-k]cents(81)/cents(80) Now we need to substitute in k, so that stretch becomes [1-cents(81/80)/cents(81*80)]*cents(81)/cents(80) (cents are a special case of log) = [(cents(81*80) - cents(81/80))/cents(81*80)]*cents(81)/cents(80) = [2*cents(80)/cents(81*80)]*cents(81)/cents(80) = 2*cents(81)/cents(81*80) = 2*log(81)/log(81*80) which is the same as 1+k, and you can work through that if you like. Graham

Message: 8956 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 22:44:49 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Graham Breed Paul Erlich wrote:> Oh, you mean "heuristic", not "hypothesis" (the latter concerns PBs > and DEs).Yes, well, I typed the right thing into Google anyway :-)> Hmm . . . I'm a bit busy right now, so can you work out an example, > and show all the errors like I did with Top meantone here?Meantone's the easy one. 81 is the odd part of 81/80. So we need to share the error of 81/80 amongst the factors of 81 according to their respective weights. As 3 is the only prime factor of 81, it takes all the tempering, and each 3 gets a quarter of it, hence quarter comma meantone.> I meant skip the step of getting a straightness measure. If we get > the right straightness measure, it won't matter which kernel basis we > pick for a given temperament. In which case we may be able to proceed > directly from the kernel to the relevant quantities. But I wouldn't > stress it at the moment . . .We can already get at everything from the wedgie, by finding out what temperament it leads to and looking at those quantities. If we can get "goodness" straight from the wedgie, that would save these calculations. This is what geometric complexity might do. And as it also gives us the straightness then, yes, it would mean we could skip straightness as an independent quantity. The main thing is to get goodness of an incomplete wedgie. Like we could find out that 2401:2400 and 3025:3024 work well together, and so keep looking for the next comma. But maybe looking at the planar temperament would tell us that. Which is like what I'm assuming about pairs of good equal temperaments giving good linear temperaments.> Thanks for being you!Well, sure, I do it all the time. Graham

Message: 8957 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 23:07:56 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:> Paul Erlich wrote:>> Maybe someone can derive this 0.24999999999997 as a 1/4 symbolically. >> I'd be very happy to see it. >> 1.0014154337454717 you say? Yes, I've derived it symbolically -- which > means I must have duplicated your method for tempering. That magic > number is 2*log(81)/log(81*80). The calculation goes something this: > > The 2 generator is tempered as cents(2)[1+k] > > The 3 generator is tempered as cents(3)[1-k] > > The 5 generator is tempered as cents(5)[1+k] > > where k is log(81/80)/log(81*80). The + or - depends on whether factors > of this prime occur in the denominator or numerator respectively.Yes, this is the method, as I recently explained here to Carl. But I didn't factor out [1+k] or [1-k] as multipliers -- that's a neat trick.> So as 2 and 5 are just in quarter comma meantone, they must be stretched > by 1+k here.Ah -- that's the secret. Good going!> In quarter comma meantone, the 3 generator is tempered as > > cents(3) - cents(81/80)/4 > > = cents(3) - cents(81)/4 + cents(80)/4 > = cents(3) - cents(3) + cents(80)/4 > = cents(80)/4 > > so the stretch from that to its new tempered value is > > cents(3)[1-k]/[cents(80)/4] > > = 4*cents(3)([1-k]/cents(80) > = [1-k]cents(81)/cents(80) > > Now we need to substitute in k, so that stretch becomes > > [1-cents(81/80)/cents(81*80)]*cents(81)/cents(80) > > (cents are a special case of log) > > = [(cents(81*80) - cents(81/80))/cents(81*80)]*cents(81)/cents(80) > = [2*cents(80)/cents(81*80)]*cents(81)/cents(80) > = 2*cents(81)/cents(81*80) > = 2*log(81)/log(81*80) > > which is the same as 1+k, and you can work through that if you like. > > > GrahamNice work, Graham!

Message: 8958 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 23:09:07 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:> Paul Erlich wrote: >>> Oh, you mean "heuristic", not "hypothesis" (the latter concerns PBs >> and DEs). >> Yes, well, I typed the right thing into Google anyway :-) >>> Hmm . . . I'm a bit busy right now, so can you work out an example, >> and show all the errors like I did with Top meantone here? >> Meantone's the easy one. 81 is the odd part of 81/80. So we need to > share the error of 81/80 amongst the factors of 81 according to their > respective weights. As 3 is the only prime factor of 81, it takes all > the tempering, and each 3 gets a quarter of it, hence quarter comma > meantone.Hmm . . . by *all* the errors, I meant for lots and lots of intervals, like I did.

Message: 8959 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:31:47 Subject: Re: Meantone reduced blocks From: Carl Lumma>> >ave you found any that don't reduce to something other than: >> >> Meantone[12] >> Diaschismic[12] >> Augmented[12] >> Diminished[12] >> >> when tempered accordingly? > >Thirds.scl qualifies.Is there an extra negation in your sentence there, Paul? -Carl

Message: 8960 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 00:39:01 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>>> Perhaps it has something to do with using this to get >>> optimum generators for a linear temperament? >>>> Well, that's exactly what this does (when the dimensionality is >> right), as I've illustrated already in a few cases. >> >> Here's something new -- Top meantone is, it seems, exactly 1/4- comma >> meantone (I get 0.24999999999997, but that's probably just rounding >> error) except a uniform (in cents, or log Hz) stretch of >> 1.00141543374547 is applied to all intervals . . . >> Is the formula for that particularly hard?Maybe someone can derive this 0.24999999999997 as a 1/4 symbolically. I'd be very happy to see it.>>> And I don't understand your 'limitless' claim -- since p/q contains >>> the factors it does and no others, one wouldn't expect its vanishing >>> to effect >> >> affect? >> Yes, I think so... :) >>>> intervals different factors. >>>> intervals with different factors? Well, 5:4 and 5:3 have *some* >> factors differing from those in the Pythagorean comma, yet both >> intervals are affected by its vanishing, in this scheme. >> But not 7:5, right?Right. Meanwhile, it seems that 81:80 vanishing leaves 6480:1 within a dust mite's excrement (which I'm allergic to, by the way) of vanishing . . .

Message: 8961 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 00:44:35 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:>>>> claim -- since p/q > contains>>>> the factors it does and no others, one wouldn't expect its > vanishing >>>> to effect >>> >>> affect? >>>> Yes, I think so... :) >>>>>> intervals different factors. >>>>>> intervals with different factors? Well, 5:4 and 5:3 have *some* >>> factors differing from those in the Pythagorean comma, yet both >>> intervals are affected by its vanishing, in this scheme. >>>> But not 7:5, right? >> Right. Meanwhile, it seems that 81:80 vanishing leaves 6480:1 within > a dust mite's excrement (which I'm allergic to, by the way) of > vanishing . . .Whoops, I meant "of being unaffected", not "of vanishing" . . . ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links To visit your group on the web, go to: Yahoo groups: /tuning-math/ * [with cont.] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: tuning-math-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: Yahoo! Terms of Service * [with cont.] (Wayb.)

Message: 8962 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 14:21:20 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Carl Lumma>> > never understood this process, >>Solving a system of linear equations? Uh-huh.>> or what differentiates a period >> from a generator. >>In our parlance, when we assume *octave-repetition*, the 'period' >will be the generator that generates the octave all by itself, while >the 'generator' (usually the smallest possible is chosen, such as >fourths for meantone) will produce all the other notes in the tuning >in conjunction with the period -- they form a basis.Why are you assuming octave repetition, what does this assumption amount to? If 2 is in the map, one of the generators had better well generate it. If it isn't in the map, assuming octave repetition seems like a bad idea to me.>>>> And does the old method give different results when going from >>>> 5-limit linear to 7-limit planar? >>>>>> I believe so, though I can't remember the specifics. >>>>>>> Or are you claiming the answer >>>> is "no" when "old method" was minimax, and "yes" when it was >>>> anything else? >>>>>> If you mean Tenney-weighted minimax over all intervals, then this >>> could very well be, though I don't think that was actually one of >>> the "old" methods that were tried around here. >>>> I'm still partial to rms over all the intervals, >>How can you do that? Does it even converge? Or do you not really >mean "all the intervals"?I can't, and I mean all the odd-limit intervals including 2s, though I suppose there may be difficulties in then allowing the size of the 2s to be a variable.>> but somehow I >> think those doing rms around here were not including the 2s. >>If you don't include all the intervals, but don't want to assume >octave-equivalence, you can use an integer limit, and I've posted >some integer-limit rms results on the tuning list and elsewhere.Ok, that makes sense. Odd-limit with tempered 2s means an infinite number of intervals to optimize. So I guess I've been asking for integer limit all along.>But >I don't like integer limit in comparison with Tenney limit, >especially a Tenney limit that you don't even have to specify (as >long as it's large enough to include all the primes you care about)!What's a Tenney limit? -Carl

Message: 8963 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 05:07:32 Subject: Re: Meantone reduced blocks 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: >>>>> Have you found any that don't reduce to something other than: >>> >>> Meantone[12] >>> Diaschismic[12] >>> Augmented[12] >>> Diminished[12] >>> >>> when tempered accordingly? >> >> Thirds.scl qualifies. >> What were the unison vectors for that again?Diesis and diesis--128/125 and 648/625.

Message: 8964 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 18:40:14 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Carl Lumma>>>> >hat do these equations look like? >>> >>> For meantone, >>>>>> prime2 = period; >>> prime3 = period + generator; >>> prime5 = 4*generator. >>> >>> You can throw out any equation -- say the first. >>> >>> so generator = .25*prime5, >>> prime3 = period + .25*prime5, >>> period = prime3 - .25*prime5. >>>> Sure, I've done these hundreds of times. But this is >> just the map -- where are all the errors of all the >> intervals? >> >> -Carl >>Just add up the primes that make them up!That sounds like TOP. I'm talking about the old way. -Carl

Message: 8965 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:21:32 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>> Hiya Graham! Let me rephrase the above. Say I'm using unweighted >> rms error over all the intervals in a given [odd] limit. I want to >> find the 5-limit linear temperament that minimizes this error, call >> it Alex, and then I want to find the 7-limit planar temperament >> that does the same, call it Ben.Assuming they're same comma vanishes in both.>> Now, are the 5-limit intervals in >> Ben going to be different sizes than they are in Alex?I believe so.

Message: 8966 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 06:39:36 Subject: The five or six Schisdia Scales From: Gene Ward Smith Five or six, because schisdia6 has already shown up under the name syndia1, and before that as ramis and tamil_vi. It is the first 5- limit Fokker block other than Pythagorean to show up under more than one rubric. ! schisdia1.scl Schisdia 32805/32768 2048/2025 scale 12 ! 16/15 9/8 6/5 81/64 4/3 64/45 3/2 8/5 27/16 3645/2048 256/135 2 ! schisdia2.scl Schisdia 32805/32768 2048/2025 scale 12 ! 256/243 10/9 32/27 5/4 4/3 45/32 16384/10935 128/81 5/3 16/9 15/8 2 ! schisdia3.scl Schisdia 32805/32768 2048/2025 scale 12 ! 135/128 4096/3645 32/27 5/4 4/3 45/32 3/2 128/81 2048/1215 16/9 15/8 2 ! schisdia4.scl Schisdia 32805/32768 2048/2025 scale 12 ! 16/15 9/8 1215/1024 81/64 4/3 64/45 3/2 8/5 27/16 3645/2048 256/135 2 ! schisdia5.scl Schisdia 32805/32768 2048/2025 scale 12 ! 135/128 9/8 1215/1024 512/405 4/3 64/45 3/2 405/256 27/16 16/9 256/135 2 ! schisdia6.scl Schisdia 32805/32768 2048/2025 scale ~ ramis tamil_vi syndia1 12 ! 16/15 9/8 6/5 81/64 4/3 64/45 3/2 8/5 27/16 9/5 256/135 2

Message: 8967 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:26:58 Subject: Hermite normal form From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:> As usual, however, nowhere on this list can I find any explanation > of hermite reduction. Not what it is, not why we'd care, and not > how to calculate it.Both Maple and Mathematica implement Hermite reduction, so one thing you can do is to read the documentation for Maple's "ihermite" and Mathematica's "HermiteNormalForm". Here's World of Math on it, unfortunately restricted to square matricies, which is not what we would be using: Hermite Normal Form -- from MathWorld * [with cont.] I don't know if Mathematica only reduces square matricies, but this entry suggests that it might. Maple's "ihermite" works the way we want it to, and works for both listlists and arrays, which is convenient.

Message: 8968 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:17:04 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Carl Lumma>> >hat sounds like TOP. I'm talking about the old way. >>Oh. The old way, you start with the mapping, and then solve for the >period and generator, and then minimize your error function (which is >over some finite set of intervals) by varying the period & generator, >or in octave-equivalent cases, just the generator. You can use >calculusAha, I knew it! Calculus! :)>and express the error function in terms of the generator >size, take the derivative, ok... >set that equal to zero, and solveLost me here. The derivative itself is a curve, unless the error/generator function is a straight line or something. Wait -- are you saying that once the error fuctio starts going up it'll never go down again? Oh, and if we're doing integer limit don't we need two generators?>-- works great for sum-squared error (p=2), weighted or unweighted.Good, that's all I want. I've got enough software to put my eye out with, I ought to be able to set this up. By the way, this now includes Matlab, if you'd prefer to illustrate with code. -Carl

Message: 8969 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:43:35 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>>>> Now, for all primes r, >>>> >>>> If p contains any factors of r, the r-rungs in the lattice (which >>>> have length log2(r)) are shrunk from >>>> cents(r) >>>> to >>>> cents(r) - log2(r)*cents(p/q)/log2(p*q). >>>> If q contains any factors of 2, they are instead stretched to >>>> cents(r) + log2(r)*cents(p/q)/log2(p*q). >>>>>> Thanks. I understand this 100%. But I don't understand what's >>> new. >>>> Where have you seen this before? >> I guess in my head. >>>> Perhaps it has something to do with using this to get >>> optimum generators for a linear temperament? >>>> Well, that's exactly what this does (when the dimensionality is >> right), as I've illustrated already in a few cases. >> What if the generator isn't a just interval? Then isn't it still > the same kind of multivariable optimization that you guys have been > using all along?I didn't make any assumptions about what the generator was above. The same formula works for any generator, and even when there is no generator, as is the case for 7-limit and above.>>> And I don't understand your 'limitless' claim -- since p/q contains >>> the factors it does and no others, one wouldn't expect its vanishing >>> to effect >> What I mean is, when extending meantone to a 7-limit mapping, it > will naturally implicate different commas and change the optimal > generator a bit, same as before.Yes, and there are different choices as to which commas to use to extend meantone to a 7-limit linear temperament. But I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about tempering out a single comma, which would lead to a planar temperament in the 7-limit, etc.> But to claim it doesn't require a limit > when it's currently limited to linear temperaments in the 5-limit...No, it's simply limited to temperaments of codimension 1. Though I've only charted the 5-limit commas, the exact same method works for any commas, and I'll be producing a 7-limit comma chart for Herman soon.

Message: 8970 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:28:33 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:>>> I never understood this process, >>>> Solving a system of linear equations? > > Uh-huh.Well, the easiest way to understand is to solve one equation for one variable, plug that solution into the other variables so that you've eliminated one variable entirely, and repeat until you're done.>>> or what differentiates a period >>> from a generator. >>>> In our parlance, when we assume *octave-repetition*, the 'period' >> will be the generator that generates the octave all by itself, while >> the 'generator' (usually the smallest possible is chosen, such as >> fourths for meantone) will produce all the other notes in the tuning >> in conjunction with the period -- they form a basis. >> Why are you assuming octave repetition, what does this assumption > amount to?That you'll have the same pitches in each (possibly tempered) octave.> If 2 is in the map, one of the generators had better well generate > it. If it isn't in the map, assuming octave repetition seems like > a bad idea to me.Any recent cases where you'd prefer not to see 2 in the map?>>>>> And does the old method give different results when going from >>>>> 5-limit linear to 7-limit planar? >>>>>>>> I believe so, though I can't remember the specifics. >>>>>>>>> Or are you claiming the answer >>>>> is "no" when "old method" was minimax, and "yes" when it was >>>>> anything else? >>>>>>>> If you mean Tenney-weighted minimax over all intervals, then this >>>> could very well be, though I don't think that was actually one of >>>> the "old" methods that were tried around here. >>>>>> I'm still partial to rms over all the intervals, >>>> How can you do that? Does it even converge? Or do you not really >> mean "all the intervals"? >> I can't, and I mean all the odd-limit intervals including 2s,There are an infinite number of those, but if the octave is fixed at 1200 cents, you only need one member of each class, and then you have a finite list of intervals, so you do get convergence.> though > I suppose there may be difficulties in then allowing the size of the > 2s to be a variable. Correct. > What's a Tenney limit?If the limit is L, it's all reduced ratios n/d such that n*d<=L (or log(n*d)<=L, whatever).

Message: 8971 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 19:45:01 Subject: Re: Meantone reduced blocks 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:>>> --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> >>> wrote: >>>>>>> Have you found any that don't reduce to something other than: >>>> >>>> Meantone[12] >>>> Diaschismic[12] >>>> Augmented[12] >>>> Diminished[12] >>>> >>>> when tempered accordingly? >>> >>> Thirds.scl qualifies. >>>> What were the unison vectors for that again? >> Diesis and diesis--128/125 and 648/625.But doesn't that reduce to Augmented[12] when 128/125 is tempered out and Diminished[12] when 648/625 is tempered out??

Message: 8972 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 22:31:29 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperamentnt From: Graham Breed Carl Lumma wrote:> Hiya Graham! Let me rephrase the above. Say I'm using unweighted > rms error over all the intervals in a given prime limit. I want to > find the 5-limit linear temperament that minimizes this error, call > it Alex, and then I want to find the 7-limit planar temperament > that does the same, call it Ben. Now, are the 5-limit intervals in > Ben going to be different sizes than they are in Alex? In TOP > temperament, the answer is no (I think). Hello!How would an unweighted, unbounded RMS error work? The advantage of the weighting is that more complex intervals get lower weights, and so the weighted error stays roughly constant. Hence you can impose a weighted minimax over all intervals within a given prime limit. The interesting, and slightly unexpected, thing about TOP is that it goes straight to this weighted minimax. Oh, you meant odd limit. Well, I'll leave that paragraph in anyway. Still to the question. Yes, I think the answer is no. If you define a 7-limit planar temperament by a 5-limit comma, the TOP method will give you a 5-limit linear temperament along with a just 7:4. And that should also be the same temperament you'd get by finding the weighted minimax for that planar temperament by any other method. Graham

Message: 8973 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:03:53 Subject: Re: Meantone reduced blocks From: Gene Ward Smith --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:> But doesn't that reduce to Augmented[12] when 128/125 is tempered out > and Diminished[12] when 648/625 is tempered out??Ooops. Had my wiring crossed.

Message: 8974 - Contents - Hide Contents Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:07:27 Subject: Re: non-1200: Tenney/heursitic meantone temperament From: Carl Lumma>>> >nd express the error function in terms of the generator >>> size, take the derivative, >> >> ok... >>>>> set that equal to zero, and solve >>>> Lost me here. The derivative itself is a curve, >>Right, and where it meets the x-axis is where it equals zero.That's where the original function is flat, but how do we know the original function isn't flat at multiple places?>> Oh, and if we're doing integer limit don't we need two >> generators? >>We need two generators if we're talking about a 2D temperament -- >either a planar temperament with octave-equivalence assumed, or a >linear temperament where we can vary the octave (or period) as well >as the generator.I'm talking about linear temperaments now, strictly. And by "integer limit", I mean variable octave, and I've been calling the period a generator for, oh, over a year.>>> -- works great for sum-squared error (p=2), weighted or unweighted. >>>> Good, that's all I want. I've got enough software to put my eye >> out with, I ought to be able to set this up. By the way, this now >> includes Matlab, if you'd prefer to illustrate with code. >>Wow. Do you have the optimization toolbox?It looks like it. I just ran a "Large-scale unconstrained nonlinear minimization" demo. -Carl -Carl

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

**8950 -**
8975 -