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 1110000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400 10450 10500 10550 10600 10650 10700 10750 10800 10850 10900 10950
10750 - 10775 -
Message: 10755 Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 01:23:19 Subject: Re: 126 7-limit linears From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> > wrote: > > Hi Gene, > > > > Would you be so kind as to produce a file like the one below, but > > instead of culling to 126 lines, leave all 32201 in there? That > would > > be great. If that's too much, you could cut off the error and > > complexity wherever you see fit. The idea, though, is to produce a > > graph, and as most pieces of paper are rectangular, the data should > > fill a rectangular region. I'm *not* arguing for a rectangular > > badness function. > > I could either upload something or email it. Which is better? Uploading keeps things public. If that doesn't work, e-mail. > > Also could you provide the TM-reduced kernel bases -- at least for > > the 126 below? > > Not unless I write code to fully automate the process first. > > Are we getting serious about the paper again? John Chalmers just reneged on his much earlier reneging of having a paper by me in XH18. He's putting a serious time-clamp on me, so there's absolutely no way we can iron out our differences in time. Right now I have 7.5 pages of text, 2 pages of endnotes, and I'm planning to have loads of those horagrams (which look much nicer printed directly to paper than as .jpgs or .gifs). Many people are thanked, especially you, Graham, and Dave. The main concern at this point is *understandability*. If the importance of the results can't be communicated to the average xenharmonicist, then all is lost. My XH17 paper was too hard for most people, and this one is much more ambitious. It's still only going to scratch the surface, leaving out most of the math, lattices, keyboard designs etc. that one would ideally like to see. Only so much space (not to mention time). > It's not as if the > marklet is flooded with good math-heavy theory papers or books. Gene, you've done work of such breadth and depth. Is it going to remain unorganized, spread across thousands of posts, forever?
Message: 10757 Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 03:12:28 Subject: Re: Why AMT (amity)? From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > Another question -- why "semisixths" but "hemifourths"? Why > not "semifourths"? A hyphenated use of the latter word is found here: > > http://www.anaphoria.com/xen3a.PDF - Ok * I presume the lack of a response means "no reason"?
Message: 10761 Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 09:45:04 Subject: Re: Comma names From: Graham Breed Gene Ward Smith wrote: >>121/120 > > Naming it after linear temperaments, this could be the undecimal > schrutar-orwell-valentine comma, or unisov for short. That's the neutral second comma, because it's between 12:11 and 11:10. >>225/224 septimal kleisma (is this the best we can do?) > > The marvel comma (not to be confused with Marvel Comics) or the > miracle-orwell comma. I though it was already established as a kleisma. The only reason the name "marvel" had to be thought up is that there's already a "kleismic". Of course, it is the marvel comma, but it's mostly the septimal kleisma. What's wrong with that name? If it does need a new one, how about some permutation of "secor"? It's the comma between 16:15 and 15:14, the two simple rationalizations of a secor. And George doesn't have a comma yet. >>441/440 > > It's a comma of miracle and unidec, but there are other linear > temperaments involved here which are pretty good but not yet named. I don't see a "Wilson's comma" either. Surely Erv must have run into this somwhere. Graham ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: Yahoo groups: /tuning-math/ * <*> 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 *
Message: 10763 Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 21:59:24 Subject: Re: The five 16/15 27/25 Fokker pentatonics From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > [1, 6/5, 4/3, 3/2, 5/3] > [1, 6/5, 4/3, 3/2, 9/5] > [1, 6/5, 5/4, 3/2, 5/3] > [1, 6/5, 4/3, 8/5, 5/3] > [1, 6/5, 4/3, 8/5, 9/5] Thanks for finally getting around to these! I enjoyed when you listed Scala names, when available . . .
Message: 10764 Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 22:09:23 Subject: Re: The five 16/15 27/25 Fokker pentatonics From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> > wrote: > > [1, 6/5, 4/3, 3/2, 5/3] > > [1, 6/5, 4/3, 3/2, 9/5] > > [1, 6/5, 5/4, 3/2, 5/3] > > [1, 6/5, 4/3, 8/5, 5/3] > > [1, 6/5, 4/3, 8/5, 9/5] > > Thanks for finally getting around to these! I enjoyed when you listed > Scala names, when available . . . Why doesn't [1, 6/5, 5/4, 3/2, 9/5] qualify? I forgot your conventions . . .
Message: 10773 Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 19:33:01 Subject: Re: 126 7-limit linears From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote: > > Hi Gene, > > > > Would you be so kind as to produce a file like the one below, but > > instead of culling to 126 lines, leave all 32201 in there? > > I presume you want TOP error, but what complexity do you want? The same complexity you used there, when you culled to 126 (just click "up thread" repeatedly if you forgot). It was the L1 kind. >Should > I use logflat badness? No badness figure required. > This will take some amount of time to compute, so I want to get it > right the first time. Well, if you can't reproduce the results you posted when you culled to 126, it'll be a good sign something's wrong. Of course, I should do an independent check myself, but time is running out.
10000 10050 10100 10150 10200 10250 10300 10350 10400 10450 10500 10550 10600 10650 10700 10750 10800 10850 10900 10950
10750 - 10775 -