Talk:BOP tuning - Revision history

ArrowHead294: Update links

2024-11-02T19:03:40Z

Update links

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:03, 2 November 2024
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Typos ==		== Typos ==

	There are 12 instances of "n/d" on this page which probably were all intended to be "nd". I cannot make these changes myself, though; the page is locked to admins only. So if an admin could take care of it, I would appreciate it. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 05:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)		There are 12 instances of "n/d" on this page which probably were all intended to be "nd". I cannot make these changes myself, though; the page is locked to admins only. So if an admin could take care of it, I would appreciate it. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 05:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Line 18:		Line 17:

	== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==		== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==

	I believe where the page says "it is also optimal using the Wilson tuning" it means to say "it is also optimal using the Wilson height", because the "it" here seems to refer to "BOP tuning".		I believe where the page says "it is also optimal using the Wilson tuning" it means to say "it is also optimal using the Wilson height", because the "it" here seems to refer to "BOP tuning".

Line 28:		Line 26:

	== Add link to D&D's guide ==		== Add link to D&D's guide ==
			This tuning is discussed extensively in D&D's guide to RTT, here: [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT/Alternative complexities#Sum-of-prime-factors-with-repetition]]. This article should have a link to that section, and should at least note that the systematic name for it is '''minimax-sopfr-S'''. But I can't add this myself because the article has been locked to non-admins. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
	This tuning is discussed extensively in D&D's guide to RTT, here: [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT~~: alternative~~ complexities#Sum-of-prime-factors-with-repetition]]. This article should have a link to that section, and should at least note that the systematic name for it is '''minimax-sopfr-S'''. But I can't add this myself because the article has been locked to non-admins. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

	== Add link to BE tuning ==		== Add link to BE tuning ==

	BOP tuning is closely related to BE tuning, its Euclideanized variant, and should be linked to the page discussing it under that name: [[Tenney-Euclidean_tuning#Benedetti-Euclidean_tuning]]. But I can't add that link myself, since the page has been locked to non-admins. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)		BOP tuning is closely related to BE tuning, its Euclideanized variant, and should be linked to the page discussing it under that name: [[Tenney-Euclidean_tuning#Benedetti-Euclidean_tuning]]. But I can't add that link myself, since the page has been locked to non-admins. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

	I'm just posting here as a reminder to admins about this and the above two requests, in case they all missed them the first time. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)		I'm just posting here as a reminder to admins about this and the above two requests, in case they all missed them the first time. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: reminder to admins w/ editing rights

2023-05-06T22:58:34Z

reminder to admins w/ editing rights

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:58, 6 May 2023
Line 34:		Line 34:

	BOP tuning is closely related to BE tuning, its Euclideanized variant, and should be linked to the page discussing it under that name: [[Tenney-Euclidean_tuning#Benedetti-Euclidean_tuning]]. But I can't add that link myself, since the page has been locked to non-admins. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)		BOP tuning is closely related to BE tuning, its Euclideanized variant, and should be linked to the page discussing it under that name: [[Tenney-Euclidean_tuning#Benedetti-Euclidean_tuning]]. But I can't add that link myself, since the page has been locked to non-admins. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

			I'm just posting here as a reminder to admins about this and the above two requests, in case they all missed them the first time. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: /* Add link to BE tuning */ new section

2023-02-06T19:28:33Z

Add link to BE tuning: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:28, 6 February 2023
Line 30:		Line 30:

	This tuning is discussed extensively in D&D's guide to RTT, here: [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT: alternative complexities#Sum-of-prime-factors-with-repetition]]. This article should have a link to that section, and should at least note that the systematic name for it is '''minimax-sopfr-S'''. But I can't add this myself because the article has been locked to non-admins. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)		This tuning is discussed extensively in D&D's guide to RTT, here: [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT: alternative complexities#Sum-of-prime-factors-with-repetition]]. This article should have a link to that section, and should at least note that the systematic name for it is '''minimax-sopfr-S'''. But I can't add this myself because the article has been locked to non-admins. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

			== Add link to BE tuning ==

			BOP tuning is closely related to BE tuning, its Euclideanized variant, and should be linked to the page discussing it under that name: [[Tenney-Euclidean_tuning#Benedetti-Euclidean_tuning]]. But I can't add that link myself, since the page has been locked to non-admins. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: /* Add link to D&D's guide */ new section

2023-02-06T19:26:51Z

Add link to D&D's guide: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:26, 6 February 2023
Line 26:		Line 26:

	I cannot make the change because I'm not an admin. If an admin could take care of this fix, I would appreciate it. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 16:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)		I cannot make the change because I'm not an admin. If an admin could take care of this fix, I would appreciate it. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 16:58, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

			== Add link to D&D's guide ==

			This tuning is discussed extensively in D&D's guide to RTT, here: [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT: alternative complexities#Sum-of-prime-factors-with-repetition]]. This article should have a link to that section, and should at least note that the systematic name for it is '''minimax-sopfr-S'''. But I can't add this myself because the article has been locked to non-admins. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

FloraC: re

2022-04-19T00:55:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:55, 19 April 2022
Line 14:		Line 14:

	:::::: Sorry. I debated including a clause in my previous comment along the lines of, "We somehow have a different way of counting these errors, but you nonetheless managed to make the changes I wanted", but I left it out at the last second because I thought it was better just to be simple and straightforward, and also I couldn't figure out how to get my wording just right so the tone couldn't be misconstrued as anything other than gracious. That choice did not pay off, though, as it resulted in confusing you. Hopefully now my position is clear. And again, thanks for your attention to this. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 23:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)		:::::: Sorry. I debated including a clause in my previous comment along the lines of, "We somehow have a different way of counting these errors, but you nonetheless managed to make the changes I wanted", but I left it out at the last second because I thought it was better just to be simple and straightforward, and also I couldn't figure out how to get my wording just right so the tone couldn't be misconstrued as anything other than gracious. That choice did not pay off, though, as it resulted in confusing you. Hopefully now my position is clear. And again, thanks for your attention to this. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 23:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

			::::::: Oh. That's good news. I'm copying my changes to this page. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 00:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

	== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==		== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==

Cmloegcmluin: /* Typos */

2022-04-18T23:54:20Z

Typos

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:54, 18 April 2022
Line 12:		Line 12:

	::::: This leaves me confused. I wonder if you still see the need of further amendments since you suggested ''12'' changes where I only find ''8''. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 20:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)		::::: This leaves me confused. I wonder if you still see the need of further amendments since you suggested ''12'' changes where I only find ''8''. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 20:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

			:::::: Sorry. I debated including a clause in my previous comment along the lines of, "We somehow have a different way of counting these errors, but you nonetheless managed to make the changes I wanted", but I left it out at the last second because I thought it was better just to be simple and straightforward, and also I couldn't figure out how to get my wording just right so the tone couldn't be misconstrued as anything other than gracious. That choice did not pay off, though, as it resulted in confusing you. Hopefully now my position is clear. And again, thanks for your attention to this. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 23:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

	== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==		== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==

FloraC: re

2022-04-18T20:43:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:43, 18 April 2022
Line 10:		Line 10:

	:::: Your changes on your user page version look good to me. Thanks. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)		:::: Your changes on your user page version look good to me. Thanks. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

			::::: This leaves me confused. I wonder if you still see the need of further amendments since you suggested ''12'' changes where I only find ''8''. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 20:43, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

	== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==		== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==

Cmloegcmluin at 20:19, 18 April 2022

2022-04-18T20:19:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:19, 18 April 2022
Line 8:		Line 8:

	::: I identified eight instances of the mistake. Plz check out ''User:FloraC/BOP tuning''. Feel free to add comments. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)		::: I identified eight instances of the mistake. Plz check out ''User:FloraC/BOP tuning''. Feel free to add comments. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

			:::: Your changes on your user page version look good to me. Thanks. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

	== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==		== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==

FloraC: re

2022-04-16T00:26:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:26, 16 April 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:

	:: They don't all occur as part of sopfr expressions, no. I think the others should be changed too for things to work out correctly. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)		:: They don't all occur as part of sopfr expressions, no. I think the others should be changed too for things to work out correctly. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

			::: I identified eight instances of the mistake. Plz check out ''User:FloraC/BOP tuning''. Feel free to add comments. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 00:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

	== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==		== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==

Cmloegcmluin at 22:51, 14 April 2022

2022-04-14T22:51:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:51, 14 April 2022
Line 4:		Line 4:

	: These all occur in sopfr () since it's supposed to take a multiplicative interval, right? [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 21:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)		: These all occur in sopfr () since it's supposed to take a multiplicative interval, right? [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 21:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

			:: They don't all occur as part of sopfr expressions, no. I think the others should be changed too for things to work out correctly. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:51, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

	== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==		== Wilson height, not Wilson tuning ==