Tuning-Math Digests messages 1925 - 1949

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 2

Previous Next

1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950

1900 - 1925 -



top of page bottom of page down


Message: 1925

Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 02:37:04

Subject: Re: Tribonacci scales

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

> You could start with this--if we replace the steps of a scale with 
> steps A,B,C by a scale with steps a,b,c, such that A=c, B=a+c and
> C=b+c, we plainly will get the old scale as a subscale of the new 
> scale.

Well, I'm glad I read that right!

Now, in the 2-step-size case, consistently putting the new small step 
_below_ the new large step, or consistently putting the new small 
step _above_ the new large step, when replacing the old large step, 
gets you MOS scales at every stage in the construction.

In the 3-step-size case, do some or all such consistent ordering 
rules lead to scales that match the step-size-patterns of Dan's L-out-
of-M-out-of-N scales, and/or your muddles?


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1926

Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 02:41:21

Subject: Re: Tribonacci scales

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> Sorry. I'm sure you know what I mean, but I must be saying it in too
> personal a way--fractional periodicity, scale index, etc.
> 
> By fractional periodicity I just mean the period divided by the GCD 
of
> the scale index (and in a Fibonacci scale I'd call the scale index 
A,
> B, ... and in a Tribonacci scale it'd be A, B, C, ...),

The same A, B, and C that satisfy C/A = t, (A+B)/C = t? Or rather a 
different A, B, and C (those that "seed" the sequence?)


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1929

Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 04:16:50

Subject: Re: Scale step iterations

From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx

--- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> I'd think other, similar constructing rules could also make some 
> sense as ways of obtaining three-step-size scales? For the two-step-
> size case, we discussed the Silver Mean case, with ratio sqrt(2)-1 
> (IIRC).

That's what I was trying to do with my example. The polynomial (and 
associated number field) x^3-x^2-x-1 has discriminant -44. We have 
only two smaller discriminants in absolute value, -31 and -23. They 
are associated to the smallest and second smallest Pisot numbers (by 
a theorem of Siegel); x^3-x-1 of disciminant -23 gives us the 
smallest Pisot number, and x^3-x^2-1 of discriminant -31 the second 
smallest. These seem like the two most obvious characteristic 
polynomials to use to look for alternative schemes. They suggest we 
could for instance try the following replacement schemes: A->b, B->c, 
C->a+b and A->b, B->c, C->a+c.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1930

Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 04:19:01

Subject: Re: Scale step iterations

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:

> That's what I was trying to do with my example. The polynomial (and 
> associated number field) x^3-x^2-x-1 has discriminant -44. We have 
> only two smaller discriminants in absolute value, -31 and -23. They 
> are associated to the smallest and second smallest Pisot numbers 
(by 
> a theorem of Siegel); x^3-x-1 of disciminant -23 gives us the 
> smallest Pisot number, and x^3-x^2-1 of discriminant -31 the second 
> smallest. These seem like the two most obvious characteristic 
> polynomials to use to look for alternative schemes. They suggest we 
> could for instance try the following replacement schemes: A->b, B-
>c, 
> C->a+b and A->b, B->c, C->a+c.

Cool! What does the discriminant tell us?


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1931

Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 04:55:09

Subject: Re: Scale step iterations

From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx

--- In tuning-math@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> Cool! What does the discriminant tell us?

Lots of things, but for our purposes the most significant seems to be 
that these are the smallest cubic fields in some sense. Just as 
the Golden Field Q(phi) has the smallest real quadratic field 
discriminant (at 5) and Q(sqrt(2)) the second smallest (at 8) and so 
supply the least complicated examples, the cubic fields of 
discriminants -23, -31 and -44 would seem to be the right place to 
start. The smallest totally real cubic field has discriminant 49, but 
this does not give us a Pisot number and that might be important. One 
polynomial for it has roots 2*cos(2^i pi/7) for i from 1 to 3, and is 
x^3+x^2-2*x-1.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1932

Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 09:18:03

Subject: How to Tribonacci

From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx

The basis I got for the Tribonacci process seemed a little 
mysterious, but the mystery is solved. The transformation matrix is 
actually the transpose of the Tribonacci one, meaning the usual 
operation is on vals, and I was looking at a transposed one on 
[1,t^2-t,t].

The transformation matrix one gets from multiplication by t sends
C->a, B->a+c, C->b+c, and is 

[0 0 1]
[1 0 1]
[0 1 1]

If we take the diatonic scale Dan started with, we have intervals of
9/8, 10/9 and 16/15, with a matrix

[ 4 -1 -1]
[ 1 -2  1]
[-3  2  0]

The inverse of this is

[2 2 3]
[3 3 5]
[4 5 7]

If we set our "a" value so that a*(2+2*(t^2-t)+3*t) = 1, and then use 
the next two rows to calculate the corresponding approximations of 3 
and 5, we get

log_2(3) ~ a*(3 + 3*(t^2-t)+5*t) 2.1  cents sharp
log_2(5) ~ a*(4 + 5*(t^2-t)+7*t) -3.5 cents flat

If we now transform the above val matrix by the Tribonacci 
transformation, we get 

[2 2 3]  [0 0 1]    [2 3  7]
[3 3 5]  [1 0 1] =  [3 5 11]
[4 5 7]  [0 1 1]    [5 7 16]

If we do the same calculation with this new val matrix we get the 
same approximation to 3 and 5 as before; instead of a Golden Meantone 
we are getting a Tribonacci 3 *and* 5. The sequence in question is
2 2 3 7 12 22 41 75 ... and the fifth is indeed the same fifth I 
started out by yowling about, but we need the Tribonacci Third also 
to define this thing.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1934

Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 19:15:54

Subject: Re: How to Tribonacci

From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx

--- In tuning-math@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> I'd like to be wrong though, so here's a couple for you to try:
> 
> 2, 1, 4, ...
> 1, 4, 2, ...

I need to get corresponding Tribonacci sequences for the 3 and the 5, 
as well as the 2, so I extend your first example to

2 1 4  7 12 23 ...
3 2 6 11 19 36 ...
4 3 9 16 28 53 ...

If t is the Tribonacci constant, this gives me an octave multiplier of
d = 2+(t^2-t)+4t = 2+3t+t^2, a 3 of (3 + 2(t^2-t)+6t)/d, 17 cents 
flat, and a 5 of (4+3(t^2-t)+9t)/d, 14 cents flat.

Do you think you could do the other one, or is this not clear?


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1935

Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 20:36:48

Subject: Re: How to Tribonacci

From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx

--- In tuning-math@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:
> Gene,
> 
> If you lattice out the results you gave in 2D they create a 2, 3, 2,
> ... scale. What I'm looking for are results that would lattice out 
to
> either a  2, 1, 4, ... or a 1, 4, 2, ... scale.

If you start with a block with steps of size 27/25, 9/8, and 10/9,
which corresponds to the first three steps I gave, and approximate 
using the approximate 3 and 5 I gave, you get 27/25:9/8:10/9 
approximated by 1:(t^2-t):t. The 27/25 comes in at about 110 cents,
9/8 at about 170 cents, and 10/9 at about 202.5 cents (so they are 
effectively reversed.) The JI block is

1-10/9-6/5-4/3-3/2-5/3-9/5-(2),

which has 2 27/25, 1 9/8, and 4 10/9. Since the 10/9 is largest, this 
is actually a 2, 1, 4 scale, which is what you wanted.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1936

Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 02:12:09

Subject: A non-Tribonacci example

From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx

Let's see what can be done with the following recurrence:

6  1 2  7 3  9 10 12 19 22 31 41 53   72  94 ...
9  2 3 11 5 14 16 19 30 35 49 65 84  114 149 ...
14 2 5 16 7 21 23 28 44 51 72 95 123 167 218 ...

The characteristic polynomial is x^3-x-1, and in terms of the power 
basis [1, x, x^2] the matrix corresponding to x is

    [0 0 1]
m = [1 0 1]
    [0 1 0]

if tm denotes the transpose of m, we want a transpose basis, in which 
multiplication by x acts like tm, not m. This means we want to find a
matrix n such that n^(-1) m n = tm; and since the first basis element 
in both cases may as well be 1, we want the first row of n to be
[1 0 0]. This determines n, and solving for it gives us

    [1 0 0]
n = [0 0 1]
    [0 1 0]

This means the transpose basis, corresponding to [1,t^2-t,t] in the 
case of Tribonacci, will be [1,x^2,x]. From the above we now have 
that the approximation to log_2(3) will be given by

(9+28x^2+3*x)/(6+x^2+2*x) = (356-7*x+20x^2)/241

and to log_2(5) by

(14+2*x^2+5*x)/(6+x^2+2*x) = (565+18*x-17*x^2)/241

This works out to a fifth flat by -0.75 cents and a third flat by
-2.85 cents.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1939

Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2001 06:58:15

Subject: Blocks for my example

From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx

Here are 9 and 10 note Fokker blocks to go with my example:

1-16/15-75/64-5/4-4/3-3/2-8/5-128/75-15/8-(2),

with steps of 

16/15-1125/1024-16/15-16/15-9/8-16/15-16/15-1125/1024-16/15

We have 6 16/15, 2 1125/1024 and 1 9/8.

The 10-note block goes

1-16/15-256/225-5/4-4/3-45/32-3/2-8/5-225/128-15/8-(2),

with steps of

16/15-16/15-1125/1024-16/15-135/128-16/15-16/15-1125/1024-16/15-16/15

This is 7 16/15, 2 1125/1024 and 1 135/128.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1942

Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 07:05:58

Subject: Re: How to Tribonacci

From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx

--- In tuning-math@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> If you take a Tribonacci like 1, 1, 4, ..., it's something that
> shouldn't be based on 3s and 5s. Or rather there's nothing saying it
> should (and from the looks of it I think it would probably be 7s and
> 11s). Anyway, using your method, if I'm understanding correctly,
> deciding the primes (or 2D planes) is arbitrary. Is this correct or 
am
> I mistaken?

You have three generators, including the 2, and so the most obvious 
thing is to approximate 2,3 and 5. What would make more sense? I 
don't see why you would want to do 2,7 and 11 instead, as you seem to 
be suggesting.

> What would be ideal would be something akin to the 1D generator
> achieved by way of adjacent fractions in a Fibonacci series that is
> not tied into an arbitrary function--well calling that generator 
some
> rational approximation is arbitrary, but that comes after the fact 
and
> not before it.

We start off with certain scale steps, and nothing prevents us from 
using these as generators instead--it's a change of basis, but no 
more. You could, for instance, have approximate values for 9/8, 16/15 
and 1125/1024 as your three generators, just as you could use 9/8 and 
4/3 instead of 3/2 and 2 for the Golden case.

> Also, like the 1D Fibonacci case, I would think that successive 
scales
> in a given series should create the same 2D "generators". Take the
> prototypical 2, 2, 3, ... example--what's the Fokker block for 2, 3,
> 7, ...? And how's that and the ones that follow related to the 3s 
and
> 5s of the 2, 2, 3, ...?

This is determined by your transpose basis, which tells you how your 
intervals break up into smaller ones.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1943

Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 23:55:08

Subject: Block recurrences

From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx

I was thinking of Dan's question, and something occurred to me which 
is interesting in its own right, as well as for this business, namely 
that the blocks themselves have recurrence relationships.

If we start from the JI diatonic scale, with steps of size 16/15, 
10/9 and 9/8, we can write the steps as a matrix and invert it:

[ 4 -1 -1]^(-1)  [2 2 3]
[ 1 -2  1]   =   [3 3 5]
[-3  2  0]       [4 5 7]

Applying the Tribonacci recurrence to the columns of the inverted 
matrix gives:

2 2 3  7 12 22 ...
3 3 5 11 19 35 ...
4 5 7 16 28 51 ...

The starting matrix is unimodular, and the property is preserved by 
the transformation, which can be viewed as multiplication by a 
unimodular matrix. Hence each of the 3x3 matrices we get is 
unimodular, and each therefore defines a block. We have as inverse 
matricies ones which represent <16/15,10/9,9/8>, 
<25/24/135/128,16/15>, <81/80,128/125,25/24> ... and so forth. The 
rule to go from one to the next is <r1,r2,r3>--><r2/r1,r3/r1,r1>,
which is the Tribonacci transpose operation. We get in this way 5-
limit blocks with 7,12,22,41 ... notes to the octave, which 
approximate to the Tribonacci recurrence scales we get by starting 
from r1=1/d, r2=(t^2-t)/d, r3=t/d where d=2+2(t^2-t)+3t and applying 
the same rule.

This can be regarded as a generalization of what we would get by 
inverting the Pythagorean pentatonic intervals of 256/243 and 9/8,
obtaining 

[2 5]
[3 8]

and extending this to

2 5  7 12 19 31 50 ...
3 8 11 19 30 49 79 ...

The Pythagorean scales are turned into meantone versions by using the 
meantone 3 of (8 phi + 3)/(5 phi + 2) = (19 - phi)/11.

One can also attempt a generalization of the basis change from two 
vals to octave plus generator, which might be from three vals to 2,3 
and generator, but this no longer is canonical, and the above seems 
more interesting.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1945

Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 08:07:54

Subject: Re: How to Tribonacci

From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx

--- In tuning-math@y..., "D.Stearns" <STEARNS@C...> wrote:

> <<What would make more sense?>>

> Again, what would make more sense would be something akin to the 1D
> generator achieved by way of adjacent fractions in a Fibonacci 
series
> that is not tied into an arbitrary function.

I'll take a shot at it, but meanwhile down below I show why I think 
this is already very much like the Golden Meantone.

> <<I don't see why you would want to do 2,7 and 11 instead, as you 
seem
> to be suggesting.>>

> You could see the 1, 1, 4, ... as a PB based on 2, 7, and 11 with 
UVs
> of 353/343 and 121/112. Why? Say we think of this scale as having a
> two stepsize cardinality at 1, 5, ..., the 1D generator would have
> nothing (or nothing "most obvious") to do with a 3 or a 5. A 1D 
chain
> of 7s would work if you've got to approximate it by a most likely
> rational.

If you like that better, I suppose you could do it that way.

> <<This is determined by your transpose basis, which tells you how 
your
> intervals break up into smaller ones.>>
> 
> Okay, what exactly does the near 3/2 and near 5/4 of the 2, 2, 
3, ...
> have to do with the 2, 3, 7, ... (please use examples, I'm slow)?

The near 3/2 and near 5/4 has to do with more than just 2,3,7... The
recurrence is really one on a 3D vector, just as what you call "the 
1D case" (which actually has two dimensions) involves a recurrence on 
a 2D vector. If you wanted to work with some other vectors, they 
could have the same 2,3,7... even so.

In other words, the Golden Meantone really is 

 7 12 19 31 50 ...
11 19 30 49 79 ...

We don't pick the closest approximation to log_2(3), even when a 
better one becomes available, we stick with the one we get by taking 
the ratio of the above.

We can write this as a sequence of mediants:

med(11/7, 19/12) = 30/19, med(19/12, 30/19) = 49/31 ...

The corresponding mediants (which might be generalized mediants) are 
easily found for other recurrences:

med(3/2,3/2,5/3) = 11/7 med(4/2,5/2,7/3) = 16/7; then
med(3/2,5/3,11/7) = 19/12 and med(5/2,7/2,16/7) = 28/12

and so forth. This is your 223 Tribonacci example. Just as we find the
golden generators using [1, phi] we use [1,t^2-t,t] to get a weighted 
mediant, which tells us the limit of the sequence. The two situations 
seem quite adequately analogous to me.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1947

Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 20:57:27

Subject: Re: Blocks for my example

From: genewardsmith@xxxx.xxx

> 3 ~  2^2 m s^(-2)

This should be 3 ~ 2^2 m^(-1) s^(-1)

In matrix form, the map is

[1  0  0]
[2 -1 -1]
[2  1  0]
[3  0 -2]
[4 -2  1]

This sends the 11-limit to the <2,m,s> system.


top of page bottom of page up down


Message: 1948

Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 03:08:55

Subject: Re: A non-Tribonacci example

From: Paul Erlich

--- In tuning-math@y..., genewardsmith@j... wrote:
> Let's see what can be done with the following recurrence:
> 
> 6  1 2  7 3  9 10 12 19 22 31 41 53   72  94 ...
> 9  2 3 11 5 14 16 19 30 35 49 65 84  114 149 ...
> 14 2 5 16 7 21 23 28 44 51 72 95 123 167 218 ...
> 
> The characteristic polynomial is x^3-x-1, and in terms of the power 
> basis [1, x, x^2] the matrix corresponding to x is
> 
>     [0 0 1]
> m = [1 0 1]
>     [0 1 0]
> 
> if tm denotes the transpose of m, we want a transpose basis, in 
which 
> multiplication by x acts like tm, not m. This means we want to find 
a
> matrix n such that n^(-1) m n = tm; and since the first basis 
element 
> in both cases may as well be 1, we want the first row of n to be
> [1 0 0]. This determines n, and solving for it gives us
> 
>     [1 0 0]
> n = [0 0 1]
>     [0 1 0]
> 
> This means the transpose basis, corresponding to [1,t^2-t,t] in the 
> case of Tribonacci, will be [1,x^2,x]. From the above we now have 
> that the approximation to log_2(3) will be given by
> 
> (9+28x^2+3*x)/(6+x^2+2*x) = (356-7*x+20x^2)/241
> 
> and to log_2(5) by
> 
> (14+2*x^2+5*x)/(6+x^2+2*x) = (565+18*x-17*x^2)/241
> 
> This works out to a fifth flat by -0.75 cents and a third flat by
> -2.85 cents.

Kornerup eat your heart out! (Not really jumping into this right now, 
just observing from a distance . . .)


top of page bottom of page up

Previous Next

1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1650 1700 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950

1900 - 1925 -

top of page