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 65000 5050 5100 5150 5200 5250 5300 5350 5400 5450 5500 5550 5600 5650 5700 5750 5800 5850 5900 5950
5400 - 5425 -
Message: 5426 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 16:25:45 Subject: Re: Epimorphic From: manuel.op.de.coul@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx I've uploaded the new Scala version so the epimorphic code can be tried now by others (show data). Also the Edit->Sound settings dialog has been improved a bit. Perhaps I should once mention another new feature which is the automatic keyboard mapping available in the MIDI relay dialog. You need to set "Automatic note name mapping" to use it, and select an appropriate key for the music. It doesn't respond to key changes, but it's not a trivial feature either. So if you have a midi loopback or keyboard, you can use bigger scales like 31-tET and the results will still make sense. For ETs it's easy to make the notation system follow the tuning if you set the "Set corresponding notation system" tick box in File->New->Equal temperament. Manuel
Message: 5427 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 11:02:42 Subject: Do you sleep Gene? :)) From: Pierre Lamothe Gene wrote: Try 1/1--2700/2401--5/4--4/3--3/2--5/3--2401/2400--2/1 Paul wrote: 2401/2400 is not between 5/3 and 2/1, gene! Gene wrote: OK, so be picky about it. :) 2401/1280 is, though. I intended to put up a slightly modified version of 1--9/8--5/4--4/3--3/2--5/3--15/8--2, with the 9/8 adjusted down by 2400/2401 and the 15/8 adjusted up by the same amount. Since h7(2401/2400) = 2, this throws a spanner in the works. You conclude from there, your presumed counterexample is not epimorphic. I hope I don't need to show that that CS implies EPIMORPHISM as I shown that. However you have doubts and believe it's not epimorphic with your definition. You're wong! Using your words I say there is a val h such that if qn is the nth scale degree, then h(qn) = n. I don't say h(qn) = 4n which would be true even with the false way you represent it. No, there is a true val such that h(qn) = n. It was not bad to try to show off with your spanner, but it would have been better to try to understand what you were doing. You simply forgotten to reduce the basis before wedging. You used the basis <2 3 5 7> while there exist a dependance about 7. The minimal basis is <2 3 5 2401>. Using the false one, you introduce inappropriate lattice points, so the corresponding val would be [28 44 64 78]. It's the type of error where modifying unwittingly the representration you attribute the thing to the represented object. There is no problem with that CS and epimorph scale, but with your way to described it with a spanned primal basis, where the octave periodicity 7 appears 28, for each block is filled with supplement lattice points never used. In the basis <2 3 5 49>, the val would be [14 22 32 78] while in the minimal basis, the val is [7 11 16 78] and your example is perfectly epimorph. Pierre [This message contained attachments]
Message: 5436 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 05:53:27 Subject: Re: NMOS From: Carl Lumma >>>I meant a chain of generators where the number of generators is >>>a multiple of a number giving a MOS--or in other words, is a >>>>multiple of something arising from a semiconvergent. >> >>How would the multiple property justify itself againt scales >>that were two MOSs superposed at some other interval (besides >>the comma)? > >huh? did you mean the generator? Nope, I meant the chromatic unison vector. >>In the case of Messiaien, the octatonic scale is an NMOS. > >it's also an MOS, plain and simple. Of what generator and ie? >>For the interlaced diatonic scales in >>24-tET, Paul has pointed out that this has excellent 7-limit >>harmony in 26. I forget at what interval this is, but I >>don't think it's the comma. > >the comma? 2187/2048 >>But Paul's excellent decatonics in 22 are two pentatonic MOSs >>apart by a non-comma (the half-octave). > >these are the symmetrical decatonics, and they _are_ MOSs. the >pentachordal decatonics aren't. the same goes for the 14-note >scales in 26 -- the symmetrical ones are MOS, the "tetrachordal" >ones aren't. I don't see how the symmetrical decatonics can be MOS, since they don't have Myhill's property. Or were you the person who was saying the fractional-period temperaments were MOSs without Myhill's property? Be nice to get a FAQ on torsion v. fractional period v. MOS v. NMOS v. Myhill. -Carl
Message: 5438 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:39:31 Subject: Re: NMOS From: manuel.op.de.coul@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx > It looks to > me like the symmetrical decatonic is MOS at the half-octave. >Which is why it is MOS--which you just were denying! I have to disagree with this, if the octave is the IE but the scale repeats at the half octave it doesn't have Myhill's property because there is only one size of tritone. If you cut the scale in half then it does have this property, but it would be a different scale. I don't like the MOS term much because of this kind of confusion. Manuel
Message: 5440 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 13:41:57 Subject: Re: NMOS From: manuel.op.de.coul@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx >I've assumed MOS referred to the period; Hey, I've always assumed it referred to the IE. >obviously you are asking for trouble if you assume otherwise. What trouble? >Since Joe's dictionary supports my usage, can we just take it >as definitive here? Just took a look. It says "only two different size intervals". This might be confusing, it doesn't exclude the possibility of less than two different size intervals. For Myhill's property it's exactly two different size intervals, prime and octave excluded. The interval of equivalence is musically more important than the period, that's why I assumed it is based on that. Manuel
Message: 5449 Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2002 23:15:10 Subject: Re: NMOS From: monz hi Gene, > From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx> > To: <tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx> > Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 4:07 PM > Subject: [tuning-math] Re: NMOS > > > --- In tuning-math@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote: > > > think about the Hypothesis. the Hypothesis says that if you temper > > out all but one of the unison vectors of a fokker periodicity block, > > you get an MOS. well, if the fokker periodicity block has torsion, > > you (may?) end up with an NMOS instead! cases in point: helmoltz 24 > > and groven 36. > > Helmholtz 24 is simply 23 consecutive fifths; it can be pretty > well equated with the 24 out of 53 2MOS I gave the notes for. > Torsion is not a consideration. torsion *is* a consideration in Helmholtz's tuning if one considers the skhisma (~2 cents) to be under the margin of error of pitch perception (usually considered to be around ~5 cents). Helmholtz's tuning can be viewed as the Pythagorean chain 3^(-16...+7). but Helmholtz himself viewed it as a skhismic temperament described by the Euler genus 3^(-8...+7) * 5^(0...+1). with C as n^0 (= 1/1), this gives a 12-tone Pythagorean chain from Ab 3^-4 to C# 3^7 which has a counterpart one syntonic comma lower at (using {3,5}-prime-vector notation) Ab [-8 1] to C# [3 1]. this is a 24-tone torsional periodicity-block defined by the Pythagorean and syntonic commas, [12 0] and [4 -1].
5000 5050 5100 5150 5200 5250 5300 5350 5400 5450 5500 5550 5600 5650 5700 5750 5800 5850 5900 5950
5400 - 5425 -