Talk:Constant structure - Revision history

Bcmills: /* “has” vs. “is” */ new section

2024-05-06T13:18:23Z

“has” vs. “is”: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:18, 6 May 2024
Line 443:		Line 443:

	--[[User:Frostburn\|Frostburn]] ([[User talk:Frostburn\|talk]]) 15:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:Frostburn\|Frostburn]] ([[User talk:Frostburn\|talk]]) 15:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

			== “has” vs. “is” ==

			The current version of the page uses two variations: “have/has constant structure” and “is a constant structure”. (See the [[Talk:Constant_structure/WikispacesArchive#.2A.2Ato_have.2A.2A_v.s_.2A.2Ato_be.2A.2A_a_constant_structure\|previous discussion]] from the Wikispaces archive.)

			Erv Wilson's original papers tended to mention only “constant structures” (plural noun), and the Yahoo tuning list entries cited in the [[http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/c/constant-structure.aspx\|Tonalsoft entry]] on constant structures consistently use “is”, with or without an article (“is/was a constant structure” or “is CS”). As far as I can tell, “has constant structure” is a neologism created in the Wikispaces entry.

			The only Google results I see for [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22has+constant+structure%22 "has constant structure"] and [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22have+constant+structure%22 "have constant structure"] are a couple of pages on this wiki, the phrase “you can have constant-structure 17 and 19-limit otonal scales” in the Yahoo tuning list [https://robertinventor.com/tuning-math/frame.html?s___9/msg_8250-8274.html&8271 message 8271], and a bunch of mathematical and chemical contexts that have nothing to do with the use of the phrase in the context of Xenharmonic music.

			So I'm going to resolve this inconsistency by changing this article to consistently use “is”.

			--[[User:Bcmills\|Bcmills]] ([[User talk:Bcmills\|talk]]) 13:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Frostburn: Suggest a relative interval table instead.

2024-05-03T15:24:33Z

Suggest a relative interval table instead.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:24, 3 May 2024
Line 356:		Line 356:

	--[[User:Bcmills\|Bcmills]] ([[User talk:Bcmills\|talk]]) 12:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:Bcmills\|Bcmills]] ([[User talk:Bcmills\|talk]]) 12:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

			----
			I like this one better:
			{\| class="wikitable center-all"
			!
			! 1
			! 2
			! 3
			! 4
			! 5
			! 6
			! 7
			! (8)
			\|-
			! C
			\| P1
			\| M2
			\| M3
			\| P4
			\| P5
			\| M6
			\| M7
			\| P8
			\|-
			! D
			\| P1
			\| M2
			\| m3
			\| P4
			\| P5
			\| M6
			\| m7
			\| P8
			\|-
			! E
			\| P1
			\| m2
			\| m3
			\| P4
			\| P5
			\| m6
			\| m7
			\| P8
			\|-
			! F
			\| P1
			\| M2
			\| M3
			\| <span style="background-color: #ffcc44;">A4</span>
			\| P5
			\| M6
			\| M7
			\| P8
			\|-
			! G
			\| P1
			\| M2
			\| M3
			\| P4
			\| P5
			\| M6
			\| m7
			\| P8
			\|-
			! A
			\| P1
			\| M2
			\| m3
			\| P4
			\| P5
			\| m6
			\| m7
			\| P8
			\|-
			! B
			\| P1
			\| m2
			\| m3
			\| P4
			\| <span style="background-color: #ffcc44;">d5</span>
			\| m6
			\| m7
			\| P8
			\|}
			Because now the CS violation can be called out as A4 = d5 when L = 2s.

			--[[User:Frostburn\|Frostburn]] ([[User talk:Frostburn\|talk]]) 15:24, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Bcmills: /* Note names in the diatonic scale */

2024-05-02T12:19:52Z

Note names in the diatonic scale

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:19, 2 May 2024
Line 6:		Line 6:

	----		----


	Interval matrix as note names:		Interval matrix as note names:
Line 94:		Line 93:
	----		----

	This usage seems incoherent to me: if the scale in the example is the diatonic scale containing C, D, E, F, G, A, and B, then ~~_the~~ scale in question doesn't contain any notes with sharps or ~~flats_~~, and it's nonsensical to talk about those notes. Instead, the table should describe the notes from a single scale, and the paragraph that follows it should also refer to the notes within that same scale.		This usage seems incoherent to me: if the scale in the example is the diatonic scale containing C, D, E, F, G, A, and B, then ''the scale in question doesn't contain any notes with sharps or flats,'' and it's nonsensical to talk about those notes. Instead, the table should describe the notes from a single scale, and the paragraph that follows it should also refer to the notes within that same scale.

	I suggest something like the following instead:		I suggest something like the following instead:
Line 353:		Line 352:
	\| 31\31		\| 31\31
	\|}		\|}

			----

	--[[User:Bcmills\|Bcmills]] ([[User talk:Bcmills\|talk]]) 12:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)		--[[User:Bcmills\|Bcmills]] ([[User talk:Bcmills\|talk]]) 12:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Bcmills: /* Note names in the diatonic scale */

2024-05-02T12:18:37Z

Note names in the diatonic scale

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:18, 2 May 2024
Line 353:		Line 353:
	\| 31\31		\| 31\31
	\|}		\|}

			--[[User:Bcmills\|Bcmills]] ([[User talk:Bcmills\|talk]]) 12:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Bcmills: discuss the diatonic scale example

2024-05-02T04:07:28Z

discuss the diatonic scale example

Show changes

Mike Battaglia: 1 revision imported: Moving archived Wikispaces discussion to subpage

2018-10-01T18:02:35Z

1 revision imported: Moving archived Wikispaces discussion to subpage

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:02, 1 October 2018
(No difference)

WikispacesArchive>Mike Battaglia: Text replacement - "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''" to "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.''' ''...

2018-10-01T18:01:16Z

Text replacement - "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''" to "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.''' <span style="color:#800000">''...

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:01, 1 October 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~= ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =~~		{{WSArchiveLink}}
	~~'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''~~

	~~<span style="color:#800000">'''PLEASE MAKE ANY NEW COMMENTS <u>ABOVE</u> THIS SECTION.'''</span> Anything below here is for archival purposes only.~~

	~~----~~

	~~== to have v.s to be a constant structure ==~~
	~~the introduction uses <em>to have</em> which I find better to understand, should we decide for a more consistent terminology for the verb?~~

	~~- '''xenwolf''' September 04, 2017, 12:15:04 AM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~

	~~== Construction of Constant Structures ==~~
	~~Could some material or resources on -how- to construct these scales be added? It seems to get exponentially harder the more notes you want and the brute force approach isn't getting me anywhere.~~

	~~I'm particularly interested in CS Scales because they seem to be the best option for bringing Just Intonation to isomorphic keyboards.~~

	~~- '''kai.lugheidh''' March 21, 2017, 07:33:10 PM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~
	I've noticed that when constructing regular scales for certain limits in a way that extends the concept of well-formedness – that is, having no more different scale steps than generating primes, and always breaking up any extraneous scale steps in the same way – Scala always reports them as being constant structures. Could I be on to something here?

	~~- '''kai.lugheidh''' June 01, 2017, 08:15:01 PM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~

	~~== Density of CS Scales in EDO's ==~~
	~~What is the definition of density?~~

	~~- '''xenwolf''' June 12, 2015, 01:21:15 AM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~
	~~I guess I was thinking of something akin to this definition, but for scales instead of numbers:~~

	~~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_density~~

	~~Basically, it is a way to ask the question of "how many CS scales are there compared to non-CS scales?"~~

	~~- '''Sarzadoce''' June 12, 2015, 09:01:02 PM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~

Mike Battaglia: Text replacement - "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''" to "'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.''' ''...

2018-09-20T07:00:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:00, 20 September 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	= ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =		= ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =
	'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''		'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''

			<span style="color:#800000">'''PLEASE MAKE ANY NEW COMMENTS <u>ABOVE</u> THIS SECTION.'''</span> Anything below here is for archival purposes only.

	----		----

Wikispaces>FREEZE at 00:00, 17 July 2018

2018-07-17T00:00:00Z

New page

= ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =
'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''
----

== **to have** v.s **to be** a constant structure ==
the introduction uses <em>to have</em> which I find better to understand, should we decide for a more consistent terminology for the verb?

- '''xenwolf''' September 04, 2017, 12:15:04 AM UTC-0700
----

== Construction of Constant Structures ==
Could some material or resources on -how- to construct these scales be added? It seems to get exponentially harder the more notes you want and the brute force approach isn't getting me anywhere.

I'm particularly interested in CS Scales because they seem to be the best option for bringing Just Intonation to isomorphic keyboards.

- '''kai.lugheidh''' March 21, 2017, 07:33:10 PM UTC-0700
----
I've noticed that when constructing regular scales for certain limits in a way that extends the concept of well-formedness – that is, having no more different scale steps than generating primes, and always breaking up any extraneous scale steps in the same way – Scala always reports them as being constant structures. Could I be on to something here?

- '''kai.lugheidh''' June 01, 2017, 08:15:01 PM UTC-0700
----

== Density of CS Scales in EDO's ==
What is the definition of density?

- '''xenwolf''' June 12, 2015, 01:21:15 AM UTC-0700
----
I guess I was thinking of something akin to this definition, but for scales instead of numbers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_density

Basically, it is a way to ask the question of "how many CS scales are there compared to non-CS scales?"

- '''Sarzadoce''' June 12, 2015, 09:01:02 PM UTC-0700
----