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 1211000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400
11150 - 11175 -
Message: 11152 Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 12:47:12 Subject: Re: Paul's nifty fifty From: Dave Keenan --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...> wrote: > > > So, like I said, call one "simple kleismic" and the other "complex > > kleismic", or even "simple-7 kleismic" and "complex-7 kleismic". > > So would "dominant sevenths" become "simple meantone" and (septimal) > meantone become "complex meantone"? > > > It doesn't make sense to have a completely unrelated name for the > > same temperament at a higher limit. > > That's what I'm trying to avoid, by giving the name (as in the case of > meantone) to the one keeping the tuning, rather than the least complex > (which would be dominant sevenths in this case.) You have a good point there. No I wouldn't call "dominant sevenths" any kind of meantone since I don't consider anything with fifths wider than those of 12-ET to be meantone. But I note that "simple-7 kleismic" does far less violence to the 5-limit ratios of the parent 5-limit temperament than does "dominant sevenths". Your proposed system does have a precedent in the naming of rivers where, as you work your way up-river and you come to forks, the widest one gets to keep the name and the other is referred to as a tributary. But sometimes it's a tough call. What would correspond to tributary wideness here? Shouldn't it be some kind of badness measure (combining error and complexity, rather than just error as you and Paul seem to be proposing)? You know me. I like systems. And since you're proposing a system here, I'll be happy. Meyers-Briggs personality type INTP = "the architect". :-) When there is no system to the naming, the name just becomes one more thing you have to memorise (or look up every time), rather than an aid to memory.
Message: 11161 Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 16:55:53 Subject: Re: The 50/49 and 22 mob From: Paul Erlich --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote: > The TOP tunings of pajara, Number 43, and the fifth and eigth > temperaments listed are the same for 2, 5, and 7. The NOT tunings of > doublewide, Number 43, and the seventh and ninth listed are also the > same for 2, 5, and 7. > > > 1. pajara > [2, -4, -4, -11, -12, 2] [[2, 3, 5, 6], [0, 1, -2, -2]] > 6 3.106578 111.836820 > > 2. doublewide > [8, 6, 6, -9, -13, -3] [[2, 5, 6, 7], [0, -4, -3, -3]] > 8 3.268439 209.180089 > > 3. "Number 43" > [6, 10, 10, 2, -1, -5] [[2, 4, 6, 7], [0, -3, -5, -5]] > 10 3.106578 310.657834 We've been calling the latter "hedgehog". -the absent one
Message: 11164 Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 22:20:46 Subject: Gene's mail server From: Paul Erlich Hi Gene, Your mail server rejected my e-mail response to you as "probable SPAM". Assuming you disagree with your server's assessment, let me know how I should proceed. -Paul
Message: 11167 Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 02:12:57 Subject: my paper nears completion From: Paul Erlich I'd appreciate any comments or corrections . . . note that it's incomplete, and the 46 horagrams are not included -- Yahoo groups: /tuning/files/perlich/coyotepaper1.doc *
Message: 11173 Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 06:09:55 Subject: Re: my paper nears completion From: Paul Erlich Thanks, Dante . . . Well, each temperament will be represented by a nice horagram (floragrams not ready in time, unfortunately). Other than that, we'll see if there's room and time for more individualized discussions . . . --- In tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxxx "Dante Rosati" <dante@i...> wrote: > Wow, Paul, its looking great! Very clearly laid out and developed. Is there > going to be any discussion of the various temperaments at the end, their > characteristics & quirks? Or would that be for another different paper? > > Dante > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Paul Erlich [mailto:perlich@a...] > > Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2004 10:13 PM > > To: tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx > > Subject: [tuning-math] my paper nears completion > > > > > > I'd appreciate any comments or corrections . . . note that it's > > incomplete, and the 46 horagrams are not included -- > > > > Yahoo groups: /tuning/files/perlich/coyotepaper1.doc *
11000 11050 11100 11150 11200 11250 11300 11350 11400
11150 - 11175 -