Talk:270edo - Revision history

FloraC: Re

2026-04-12T20:58:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 12 April 2026
Line 13:		Line 13:

	::: Surprised you out of all people think it doesn't make sense... Based on the little understanding I have about logflat badness, it makes perfect sense to me. The way I see it: TE logflat badness punishes complexity exponentially, and since higher ranks get comparatively less badness, you get the gravelly and innacurate edo scoring way higher than many other better edos because it's extremely simple and does a "relatively good" job of crudely representing the 13-limit with minimal complexity albeit very high error. Barring the coarse edos, TE logflat badness is a metric that feels stronger than relative error alone. That jump from 270 to 96478 to me says that there is nothing as GOOD for the 13-limit as 270edo, up until insane edos. If it is denoted in absurdly fine edos like 4296, it should be denoted in much coarser - and useful edos. --[[User:Eufalesio\|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio\|talk]]) 20:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)		::: Surprised you out of all people think it doesn't make sense... Based on the little understanding I have about logflat badness, it makes perfect sense to me. The way I see it: TE logflat badness punishes complexity exponentially, and since higher ranks get comparatively less badness, you get the gravelly and innacurate edo scoring way higher than many other better edos because it's extremely simple and does a "relatively good" job of crudely representing the 13-limit with minimal complexity albeit very high error. Barring the coarse edos, TE logflat badness is a metric that feels stronger than relative error alone. That jump from 270 to 96478 to me says that there is nothing as GOOD for the 13-limit as 270edo, up until insane edos. If it is denoted in absurdly fine edos like 4296, it should be denoted in much coarser - and useful edos. --[[User:Eufalesio\|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio\|talk]]) 20:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

			:::: I know how it works in theory. I still don't think it's a good sequence. Mainly it's hardly informative when you have only five or so entires in the sequence. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 20:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Eufalesio at 20:19, 12 April 2026

2026-04-12T20:19:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:19, 12 April 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:

	:: It's simply not a good sequence. The sparsity. The presence of 9. The leap from 9 to 58. None of them makes sense. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 19:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)		:: It's simply not a good sequence. The sparsity. The presence of 9. The leap from 9 to 58. None of them makes sense. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 19:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

			::: Surprised you out of all people think it doesn't make sense... Based on the little understanding I have about logflat badness, it makes perfect sense to me. The way I see it: TE logflat badness punishes complexity exponentially, and since higher ranks get comparatively less badness, you get the gravelly and innacurate edo scoring way higher than many other better edos because it's extremely simple and does a "relatively good" job of crudely representing the 13-limit with minimal complexity albeit very high error. Barring the coarse edos, TE logflat badness is a metric that feels stronger than relative error alone. That jump from 270 to 96478 to me says that there is nothing as GOOD for the 13-limit as 270edo, up until insane edos. If it is denoted in absurdly fine edos like 4296, it should be denoted in much coarser - and useful edos. --[[User:Eufalesio\|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio\|talk]]) 20:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

FloraC: Re

2026-04-12T19:57:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:57, 12 April 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:

	: Why not? I genuinely don't see your point. --[[User:Eufalesio\|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio\|talk]]) 17:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)		: Why not? I genuinely don't see your point. --[[User:Eufalesio\|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio\|talk]]) 17:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

			:: It's simply not a good sequence. The sparsity. The presence of 9. The leap from 9 to 58. None of them makes sense. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 19:56, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Eufalesio: /* TE logflat badness */

2026-04-12T17:13:39Z

TE logflat badness

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:13, 12 April 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:

	—[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 13:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)		—[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 13:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

			: Why not? I genuinely don't see your point. --[[User:Eufalesio\|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio\|talk]]) 17:13, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

FloraC: Created page with "== TE logflat badness == Sequence of decreasing 13-limit TE logflat badness for GPVs from 5 to 196608: * 9, 58, 72, 270, 96478 I feel this demonstrates perfectly why TE logflat badness isn't a very relevant metric for equal temps. —~~~~"

2026-04-12T13:01:22Z

Created page with "== TE logflat badness == Sequence of decreasing 13-limit TE logflat badness for GPVs from 5 to 196608: * 9, 58, 72, 270, 96478 I feel this demonstrates perfectly why TE logflat badness isn't a very relevant metric for equal temps. —~~~~"

New page

== TE logflat badness ==
Sequence of decreasing 13-limit TE logflat badness for GPVs from 5 to 196608:

* 9, 58, 72, 270, 96478

I feel this demonstrates perfectly why TE logflat badness isn't a very relevant metric for equal temps.

—[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:01, 12 April 2026 (UTC)