Talk:31st-octave temperaments - Revision history

FloraC: /* Bold lemma? */ re

2022-02-24T16:25:12Z

Bold lemma?: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:25, 24 February 2022
Line 23:		Line 23:

	::: Thanks for helping me understand. BTW: Did you know that subpages are disabled for the article namespace? So even "1/31 octave" would have been possible. Maybe for English natives this isn't a problem, but I'm often confused by the duality of ordinals and fractions. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)		::: Thanks for helping me understand. BTW: Did you know that subpages are disabled for the article namespace? So even "1/31 octave" would have been possible. Maybe for English natives this isn't a problem, but I'm often confused by the duality of ordinals and fractions. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

			:::: Yea I'm aware. This page was moved following another similar page (→ ''26th-octave temperaments''). I think either title would be ok, but changes must be made to both pages. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Bold lemma? */ thx

2022-02-24T13:11:34Z

Bold lemma?: thx

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:11, 24 February 2022
Line 21:		Line 21:

	:: I saw that the page was moved to this lemma and wondered if the current name is really the best choice. So I took a look at the article and found the term "31st octave" neither mentioned nor explained here. To be more specific, I have no trouble with the word "temperaments" at all, but simply wish that some explanation of the term "31st octave" would come out of the article. Thank you in advance for this! --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 12:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)		:: I saw that the page was moved to this lemma and wondered if the current name is really the best choice. So I took a look at the article and found the term "31st octave" neither mentioned nor explained here. To be more specific, I have no trouble with the word "temperaments" at all, but simply wish that some explanation of the term "31st octave" would come out of the article. Thank you in advance for this! --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 12:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

			::: Thanks for helping me understand. BTW: Did you know that subpages are disabled for the article namespace? So even "1/31 octave" would have been possible. Maybe for English natives this isn't a problem, but I'm often confused by the duality of ordinals and fractions. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 13:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Bold lemma? */ bold isn't as important

2022-02-24T12:49:27Z

Bold lemma?: bold isn't as important

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:49, 24 February 2022
Line 19:		Line 19:

	: Plenty of Wikipedia articles don't have a bolded lemma (e.g. [[Wikipedia: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach]]). It's more common when the article is not about a concept but about a collection. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)		: Plenty of Wikipedia articles don't have a bolded lemma (e.g. [[Wikipedia: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach]]). It's more common when the article is not about a concept but about a collection. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

			:: I saw that the page was moved to this lemma and wondered if the current name is really the best choice. So I took a look at the article and found the term "31st octave" neither mentioned nor explained here. To be more specific, I have no trouble with the word "temperaments" at all, but simply wish that some explanation of the term "31st octave" would come out of the article. Thank you in advance for this! --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 12:49, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

FloraC: /* Bold lemma? */ re

2022-02-24T10:01:10Z

Bold lemma?: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:01, 24 February 2022
Line 17:		Line 17:

	If there is no way to present the lemma ('''in bold''') in the introduction, this seems to indicate a problem. Any ideas about that? --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 22:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)		If there is no way to present the lemma ('''in bold''') in the introduction, this seems to indicate a problem. Any ideas about that? --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 22:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

			: Plenty of Wikipedia articles don't have a bolded lemma (e.g. [[Wikipedia: List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach]]). It's more common when the article is not about a concept but about a collection. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 10:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Xenwolf: add toc

2022-02-23T22:21:32Z

add toc

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:21, 23 February 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= sad enfactoring? =		__TOC__
			== sad enfactoring? ==

	Trying to understand this statement in the '''Birds''' section: "It also tempers out the 31-7 comma, but sadly, combining the two commas leads to torsion."		Trying to understand this statement in the '''Birds''' section: "It also tempers out the 31-7 comma, but sadly, combining the two commas leads to torsion."

Xenwolf: /* Bold lemma? */ new section

2022-02-23T22:21:01Z

Bold lemma?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:21, 23 February 2022
Line 12:		Line 12:

	: I don't understand that part either. That said, this entire page may use some improvements. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)		: I don't understand that part either. That said, this entire page may use some improvements. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

			== Bold lemma? ==

			If there is no way to present the lemma ('''in bold''') in the introduction, this seems to indicate a problem. Any ideas about that? --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 22:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: unhyphenate "comma basis"

2021-11-12T20:17:17Z

unhyphenate "comma basis"

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:17, 12 November 2021
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Trying to understand this statement in the '''Birds''' section: "It also tempers out the 31-7 comma, but sadly, combining the two commas leads to torsion."		Trying to understand this statement in the '''Birds''' section: "It also tempers out the 31-7 comma, but sadly, combining the two commas leads to torsion."

	When the commas listed — 3136/3125 and 823543/819200 — are expressed as the comma-basis for this temperament, we get {{map\|{{vector\|6 0 -5 2}} {{vector\|-15 0 -2 7}}}}. This matches with the mapping provided {{vector\|{{map\|31 49 72 87}} {{map\|0 1 0 0}}}}, i.e. it is its null-space. In [[canonical form]] this mapping and comma-basis are {{vector\|{{map\|31 0 72 87}} {{map\|0 1 0 0}}}} and {{map\|{{vector\|-72 0 31 0}} {{vector\|-33 0 13 1}}}}, respectively.		When the commas listed — 3136/3125 and 823543/819200 — are expressed as the comma basis for this temperament, we get {{map\|{{vector\|6 0 -5 2}} {{vector\|-15 0 -2 7}}}}. This matches with the mapping provided {{vector\|{{map\|31 49 72 87}} {{map\|0 1 0 0}}}}, i.e. it is its null-space. In [[canonical form]] this mapping and comma basis are {{vector\|{{map\|31 0 72 87}} {{map\|0 1 0 0}}}} and {{map\|{{vector\|-72 0 31 0}} {{vector\|-33 0 13 1}}}}, respectively.

	Elsewhere description claims that this temperament could be defined by tempering out the 31-5 and the 31-7 commas, were it not for torsion. I don't know what is "sad" about the torsion. Simply remove it by [[defactoring]], right? When these two commas are expressed as a comma-basis for a temperament it looks like {{map\|{{vector\|-87 0 0 31}} {{vector\|72 0 -31 0}}}}, and then if we put it in canonical form (which defactors it), we get the same thing {{map\|{{vector\|-72 0 31 0}} {{vector\|-33 0 13 1}}}} as what's there.		Elsewhere description claims that this temperament could be defined by tempering out the 31-5 and the 31-7 commas, were it not for torsion. I don't know what is "sad" about the torsion. Simply remove it by [[defactoring]], right? When these two commas are expressed as a comma basis for a temperament it looks like {{map\|{{vector\|-87 0 0 31}} {{vector\|72 0 -31 0}}}}, and then if we put it in canonical form (which defactors it), we get the same thing {{map\|{{vector\|-72 0 31 0}} {{vector\|-33 0 13 1}}}} as what's there.

	So can't we just remove the part where it says "but sadly, combining the two commas leads to torsion"? Otherwise, can we clarify what is sad?		So can't we just remove the part where it says "but sadly, combining the two commas leads to torsion"? Otherwise, can we clarify what is sad?

FloraC: re

2021-09-30T16:56:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:56, 30 September 2021
Line 10:		Line 10:

	If this clause is retained, then I have a revision request. As you can read about on the page re: defactoring, I am recommending we not use the word "torsion" for temperaments, but only for periodicity blocks. A temperament may "be enfactored", but it shouldn't be said to "have torsion". --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 16:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)		If this clause is retained, then I have a revision request. As you can read about on the page re: defactoring, I am recommending we not use the word "torsion" for temperaments, but only for periodicity blocks. A temperament may "be enfactored", but it shouldn't be said to "have torsion". --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 16:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

			: I don't understand that part either. That said, this entire page may use some improvements. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: Created page with "= sad enfactoring? = Trying to understand this statement in the '''Birds''' section: "It also tempers out the 31-7 comma, but sadly, combining the two commas leads to torsion..."

2021-09-30T16:24:53Z

Created page with "= sad enfactoring? = Trying to understand this statement in the '''Birds''' section: "It also tempers out the 31-7 comma, but sadly, combining the two commas leads to torsion..."

New page

= sad enfactoring? =

Trying to understand this statement in the '''Birds''' section: "It also tempers out the 31-7 comma, but sadly, combining the two commas leads to torsion."

When the commas listed — 3136/3125 and 823543/819200 — are expressed as the comma-basis for this temperament, we get {{map|{{vector|6 0 -5 2}} {{vector|-15 0 -2 7}}}}. This matches with the mapping provided {{vector|{{map|31 49 72 87}} {{map|0 1 0 0}}}}, i.e. it is its null-space. In [[canonical form]] this mapping and comma-basis are {{vector|{{map|31 0 72 87}} {{map|0 1 0 0}}}} and {{map|{{vector|-72 0 31 0}} {{vector|-33 0 13 1}}}}, respectively.

Elsewhere description claims that this temperament could be defined by tempering out the 31-5 and the 31-7 commas, were it not for torsion. I don't know what is "sad" about the torsion. Simply remove it by [[defactoring]], right? When these two commas are expressed as a comma-basis for a temperament it looks like {{map|{{vector|-87 0 0 31}} {{vector|72 0 -31 0}}}}, and then if we put it in canonical form (which defactors it), we get the same thing {{map|{{vector|-72 0 31 0}} {{vector|-33 0 13 1}}}} as what's there.

So can't we just remove the part where it says "but sadly, combining the two commas leads to torsion"? Otherwise, can we clarify what is sad?

If this clause is retained, then I have a revision request. As you can read about on the page re: defactoring, I am recommending we not use the word "torsion" for temperaments, but only for periodicity blocks. A temperament may "be enfactored", but it shouldn't be said to "have torsion". --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 16:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)