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 76000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500 6550 6600 6650 6700 6750 6800 6850 6900 6950
6300 - 6325 -
Message: 6310 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 03:02:49 Subject: Re: heuristic and straightness From: Carl Lumma >>>> Is it any more proportional to log(d) than log(n) in this >>>> case? Since n~=d? >>> >>>No, and the spreadsheet sorted by d is also sorted by n. >> >>So it could just as well be (n-d)/(d*log(n))? > >a very different sorting. that would be heuristic error, not >heuristic complexity. of course it's a very different sorting, >since knowing log(n) or log(d) tells you nothing about (n-d). ? I was asking if the *error* heuristic could become (n-d)/(d*log(n)) if we substituted log(n) for log(d). >>>It's the first order approximaton where n/d ~= 1. See (8) in >>>Natural Logarithm -- from MathWorld * >> >>The Mercator series?? And all the stuff on this page applies >>only to ln, not log in general (which is what I assume Paul >>meant), right? > >i meant ln. i always use matlab, in which "log" means ln. Oh. How odd. -Carl
Message: 6311 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 03:07:34 Subject: Re: heuristic and straightness From: Carl Lumma >>>>>And in that case it would have been easier to go straight >>>>>to log(n*d). >>>> >>>>Straight to where (do you see log(n*d))? >>> >>>log(n*d) = log(n) + log(d) >> >>Of course... so we're coming from log(n*d), not going to it. > >what do you mean, we're coming from log(n*d)?? In your original message, you *start from* "is proportional to log(n) + log(d)" and *arrive at* "Hence the amount of tempering implied by the unison vector is approx. proportional to (n-d)/(d*log(d))". -Carl
Message: 6312 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 03:10:55 Subject: Re: heuristic and straightness From: Carl Lumma > > I do see that... you were already using the term for the > > complexity heuristic at that time, right? > > no, gene introduced the word "heuristic". K. > > >w=log(n/d) > > > > Got that. > > > > >w~=n/d-1 > > > > How do you get this from that? > > standard taylor series approximation for log . . . if x is > close to 1, then log(x) is close to x-1 (since the derivative > of log(x) near x=1 is 1/1 = 1). Cool. > > >w~=(n-d)/d > > > > Ditto. > > arithmetic. n/d - 1 = n/d - d/d = (n-d)/d. Yeah, I thought the 1 was in the denominator. -C.
Message: 6313 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 03:29:37 Subject: Re: heuristic and straightness From: Carl Lumma >>Ok, but I still don't get how the "Mercator series" shown in (8) >>dictates the rules for this approximation. > >Oh, I thought you had followed that. > >It's usually called the Taylor series. I don't know what >Mercator's got to do with it. On the mathworld page, it says "the Mercator series gives a Taylor series for the natural logarithm", and in fact makes it look like the Taylor series is the Mercator series. >But anyway it's > > ln(1+x) = x - x**2/2 + x**3/3 + ... > > where x is small. Because x is small, x**2 must be even > smaller, so you can use the first order approximation > > ln(1+x) =~ x > > In this case, 1+x is n/d, so x = n/d - 1 > > ln(n/d) =~ n/d - 1 Thanks! -Carl
Message: 6314 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 04:02:23 Subject: Re: heuristic and straightness From: Carl Lumma >>It's usually called the Taylor series. I don't know what >>Mercator's got to do with it. > >On the mathworld page, it says "the Mercator series gives a >Taylor series for the natural logarithm", and in fact makes >it look like the Taylor series is the Mercator series. ...by the way the page is formatted. Turns out that the Mercator series is what we're talking about; a special case of the Taylor series. Taylor Series -- from MathWorld * "A Taylor series is a series expansion of a function about a point. ... " -Carl
Message: 6315 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 18:01:03 Subject: Re: A common notation for JI and ETs From: David C Keenan Paul Erlich wrote: >these cutoffs are totally arbitrary and need not even be based >strictly on JI cents considerations. but you guys may be interested >in studying the following links (which, however, concern 5-limit >only): > >Yahoo groups: /tuning/database? * >method=reportRows&tbl=10&sortBy=5&sortDir=up > >(be sure [to click 'Next'] through all the pages) > >Onelist Tuning Digest # 483 message 26, (c)2000 by Joe Monzo * Thanks. Those were very useful. In case anyone is wondering, the usage I gave, that is referred to on Monz's page above, was that of Scala's intnam.par which is that the difference between 3 major thirds and an octave is the minor diesis (41.06 c untempered) and the difference between 4 minor thirds and an octave is the major diesis (62.57 c untempered). Since for our purposes, we _are_ basing it strictly on "JI cents considerations" (i.e. the untempered size), I think we can take it that the "minimal diesis" at 27.66 c and the "small diesis" at 29.61 cents can afford to be considered as some kind of comma, since there's a big gap between them and all the other 5-prime-limit dieses. Given that the prime exponent vectors for these are [5 -9 4] and [-10 -1 5] respectively, there is unlikely to be much call for using them to notate rational pitches, and certainly not for notating temperaments. The next largest is the minor diesis of 41.06 c. By the way, calling this a great or major diesis just seems silly to me since there are two larger than it, and they are not particularly obscure or complex. I think Mandelbaum and/or Würschmidt and/or Helmholtz and/or Ellis screwed up. Monz's chart showing his size categories for 5-prime-limit "anomalies" is very interesting and has the following agreement with ours so far. The skhisma-kleisma boundary is between 2 and 6 cents. The kleisma-comma boundary is between 13 and 18 cents. There is a boundary between 53 and 59 cents. Differences are: We have found no need of a boundary between 23 and 28 cents. We don't have a boundary between 34 and 39 cents, although we should probably move our 40 cent boundary down to here. We could use a boundary between 43 and 47 cents . We have one between 65 and 69 cents that Monz doesn't. The places where we want different or additional boundaries, _do_ appear as gaps on Monz's chart, even when he has not seen fit to make them nominal boundaries. Here's how the names correspond so far: Monz George and Dave -------------------------------- skhisma schisma kleisma kleisma comma comma small diesis comma great diesis diesis small semitone ediesis (and other larger anomalies) >--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "gdsecor <gdsecor@y...>" ><gdsecor@y...> wrote: >--- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx David C Keenan <d.keenan@u...> >wrote: > > There are two slightly more popular pairs that would benefit from a >higher > > kleisma-comma boundary. > > > > N kleisma comma > > 245 14.19 37.65 > > 7:13 14.61 38.07 > > > > I note that neither of us is willing to bring the comma diesis >boundary > > down below 38.07 or 37.65 cents. > >But I'm willing to consider it if there's a good reason for it. > > ... Monz's chart has helped me to see that lowering the comma-diesis boundary to just below 37.65 cents is a better solution than raising the kleisma-comma boundary above 14.61. Then we have N comma diesis 245 14.19 37.65 7:13 14.61 38.07 > > I'll use the term ediasis (pron. ed-I-as-is, not ee-DI-as-is) for a >diasis > > larger than a half apotome, until someone tells me they like >something else > > better. > >Okay. (Somebody, *please* suggest something better; ediasis sounds >too much like a disease.) You saw my other suggestions didn't you? "biesis" and "diesoma". I think they sound even more like diseases. There's not a lot you can do about that when "diesis" itself sounds like a disease? The prefix "edi" or "oedi" meaning swollen has the same etymology as "Edipus" of the ancient Greek story. Edipus is literally "swollen feet" (from walking so much). > > Some things in the kleisma size range have been called semicommas. > >I just think that "kleisma" sounds better. Me too. Good ole Shohe' Tanaka. > > >... > > >The point here is that I thought that the comma (120:121, ~14.367c) > > >between the next smaller pair of superparticular ratios (10:11 and > > >11:12) should be smaller than the lower size limit for a comma. If > > >they were used as the two ("whole") tones in a tetrachord, their >sum > > >would be 5:6, which would leave 9:10 as the remaining interval > > >(or "semitone") of the tetrachord. But to have a "semitone" in a > > >tetrachord that is larger than either of the "whole" tones is >absurd, > > >hence a practical basis for a boundary. > > > > I find this argument interesting but not convincing. Why must the >whole > > tones be superparticular? > >They don't have to, but since there are actual examples of ancient >Greek tetrachords with diatonic steps of 7:8 with 8:9 (Archytas), of >8:9 with 9:10 (Didymus), and of 9:10 with 10:11 (Ptolemy's hemiolon), >these being all of the possible cases, I found that it was possible >to draw a conclusion from them. > >Interestingly, the next larger pair, 6:7 with 7:8 -- difference of >48:49, ~35.697c -- adds up to an exact 3:4, leaving a semitone that >vanishes. A tetrachord with only 3 notes isn't exactly kosher is it? And we don't have any other reason to go quite that low. > Their difference is still a bit smaller than we were >considering for the comma-diesis boundary, which makes me wonder if >40 cents is still too large. Yes. I'm down to 37.65 c now. Just under the 245-diesis. > > Why must they even be simple ratios? > >Because a comma, by definition, is the difference between two >rational intervals similar in size. However they don't have to be _simple_. But never mind. > > Anyway, some very small intervals have been called commas for a >long time. > > e.g. We have Mercator's comma at about 3.6 cents and Wuerschmidt's >comma at > > about 11.4 cents. These are from Scala's intnam.par. > >These are just examples that the term can have a broad or generic >usage in addition to the more specific definition that we're seeking. I'll buy that. > > >You want the boundary to be somewhere between what we have been > > >calling the 17 comma (~8.7c) and 17' comma (~14.730c). To > > >accommodate both of these requirements, we could put the lower > > >boundary for a comma at infinitesimally above 120:121, >14.37c. > > >Would this be too large an upper limit for a "kleisma?" If so, >why? > > > > No I can't really argue that, although it is getting close to >double the > > size of _the_ kleisma. I now want to put the boundary even a little >higher > > than you suggest, at just above 28431:28672 (or 14.614 c) so we >have a 7:13 > > kleisma and a 7:13 comma (38.07 c) as mentioned above. > > > > This does mean we have the 17-comma and the 7:13-kleisma being >notated with > > the same symbol ~|( > >But it doesn't make much sense, though. You're right. > > but I can probably live with that. Or would you rather > > have two 7:13 commas? > >This might be a good reason to make the comma-diesis boundary >somewhere around 37 to 38 cents. Yes. > This would then put 1deg31 in the >diesis range (at the lower end) -- 1deg31 is also functions as a 7- >comma, but I think its dual use demonstrates that it's appropriate to >have the boundary somewhere around this size. But the size in cents of 1deg31 is irrelevant because it's tempered. I expect it is called a diesis because it corresponds to some 5-prime-limit comma whose untempered size would have made it a diesis even with our earlier 40 cent cutoff. In the case of sagittal it remains a diesis because it's a tempered 11-diesis. >If 1664:1701 (~38.073c) is the 7:13 diesis, then 1377:1408 (~38.543c) >and 44:45 (~38.906c) would become the 11:17 and 5:11 dieses. Do you >know of any potential problems with these designations? No problem. >If nobody else says anything, then that's what's going to happen. I >can't see making another boundary between semicomma and kleisma >without a good reason. I agree there is no need for a separate semicomma category. > > diesis 1 diesis 2 > > N cents cents > > ------------------------------ > > 5:13 43.83 46.39 > > 37 42.79 47.43 > > 11:19 40.33 49.89 > > 25:77 44.66 45.56 > > > > It doesn't seem like a good idea to have a category that only >covers the > > range 40.00 to 45.11 cents, but that's what we need for the above. > >I'll have to look these over to see if there's really any musical >need some of these. For example, the 46.39-cent 5:13 diesis would >notate 10:13 as an interval of a third, but I can't imagine that >anyone would want a third this large in a diatonic or heptatonic >scale very often. It _does_ seem like a good idea to me now to have a category of small dieses between 37.65 c and 45.11 c. For now I'll call these "carcinomas". That should make folks think _real_hard_ to come up with a better term. :-) With this category, we don't have anything with two useful "anomalies" in the same category until we get down to 32:49, which is waaaay down the popularity list at number 145 with a 0.02% ocurrence. It has two kleismas, from C, Cb - 10.81 c and B + 12.65 c. Although, when I say that, I am not counting 11:35 which is considerably more popular and has been mentioned before and has, from C, Cb - 11.64 c and B + 11.82 c. But we can get away with this because these are essentially a single kleisma. To summarise: 0 schismina 0.98 schisma 4.50 kleisma 13.58 comma 37.65 carcinoma 45.11 diesis 56.84 ediasis 68.57 -- Dave Keenan Brisbane, Australia Dave Keenan's Home Page *
Message: 6316 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 18:08:32 Subject: Re: A common notation for JI and ETs From: David C Keenan On second thoughts, 13.47 cents might be a better choice for the kleisma-comma boundary.
Message: 6317 Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2003 18:08:32 Subject: Re: A common notation for JI and ETs From: David C Keenan On second thoughts, 13.47 cents might be a better choice for the=20 kleisma-comma boundary.
Message: 6320 Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 17:04:18 Subject: Re: A common notation for JI and ETs From: Graham Breed Me: > Ratios are one of the insufficiently >>general representations -- they don't work for inharmonic timbres. Gene: > Isn't this a complete red herring? We are now talking about lists or sets of partial tones, not vectors. Intervals are defined as vectors in terms of a minimal subset of the partials relative to the fundamental (which, for inharmonic timbres, will probably be the whole set). The only part of the definition here: Vector -- from MathWorld * they don't comply with is that you can't construct unit vectors. But that can be fixed if we have to as there are cases where fractions do creep in. They can be added, subtracted and multiplied by scalars. A list, it appears, is merely an ordered set, and so doesn't support these operations. If all vectors are also lists, so they must be lists. But they look like vectors as well. As for sets, from Set -- from MathWorld * "A set is a finite or infinite collection of objects in which order has no significance, and multiplicity is generally also ignored (unlike a list or multiset)" Well, we certainly can't ignore multiplicity. [1, 2, 0] is very different to [1, 1, 0]. Even if we don't, are partials allowed to be present a negative number of times? Even if that is a set, we're writing it as a list or vector (except when we write it as a ratio, but that won't work in general). I'm sorry the CGI doesn't support this yet. For now, here's an old list of tubulong temperaments: 2 4 6 10 14 16 18 20 22 26 30 34 36 38 44 46 50 52 54 62 * The unison vectors are not frequency ratios, so there's no other way to represent them. The partials are: 2.82843 5.42326 8.77058 12.86626 17.70875 23.29741 The first unison vector is [-3, 2, 0, 0] That's -3*log2(2) + 2*log2(2.82843) = 2.9 microoctaves. I know it isn't quite a unison, but if it isn't a vector, what is it? Graham
Message: 6321 Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2003 17:12:06 Subject: Re: A common notation for JI and ETs From: Graham Breed I wrote: > 2.82843 5.42326 8.77058 12.86626 17.70875 23.29741 > > The first unison vector is [-3, 2, 0, 0] That's -3*log2(2) + > 2*log2(2.82843) = 2.9 microoctaves. I know it isn't quite a unison, but > if it isn't a vector, what is it? Bwahahaha!!!! This particular unison vector, as an emergent property of the system, really is a unison. Graham
6000 6050 6100 6150 6200 6250 6300 6350 6400 6450 6500 6550 6600 6650 6700 6750 6800 6850 6900 6950
6300 - 6325 -