Talk:EDO vs ET - Revision history

Dummy index: /* Opening statements */

2023-06-28T15:03:41Z

Opening statements

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:03, 28 June 2023
Line 93:		Line 93:
	::::::::::: Let me know if you have further questions, and I'll do my best to answer. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)		::::::::::: Let me know if you have further questions, and I'll do my best to answer. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

	:::::::::::: So I tried to get a one-to-one correspondence with the output by "enfactoring" the input by 12, and the result was the 2<sup>1/12</sup> domain basis. But I have just come to the conclusion that this has no practical significance. Mapping the equal-step tuning ~~to an exponential function~~ is no different from the generator chain, and there is nothing to do in 1D domain. Barely the 2-limit case is only useful for explaining as a edge case. --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 15:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)		:::::::::::: So I tried to get a one-to-one correspondence with the output by "enfactoring" the input by 12, and the result was the 2<sup>1/12</sup> domain basis. But I have just come to the conclusion that this has no practical significance. Mapping an exponential function to the equal-step tuning is no different from the generator chain, and there is nothing to do in 1D domain. Barely the 2-limit case is only useful for explaining as a edge case. --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 15:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

	== "Supports" ==		== "Supports" ==

Dummy index: /* Opening statements */

2023-06-28T15:00:56Z

Opening statements

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:00, 28 June 2023
Line 92:		Line 92:
	::::::::::: Is 2-limit 12-ET (= contorted (order 12) 2-limit) a RT? Yes. It is a temperament because it calls itself a temperament and well-defined. (But I'll add: I've suggested we call this sort of thing a "temperoid"; I prefer to use the term "enfactored" rather than "contorted", and the point is that {{map\|12}} doesn't bring anything more to the table ''as a regular temperament'' than {{map\|1}} does, so if we wanted to make a list of all the unique regular temperaments in existence, we would include {{map\|1}} but we might not want to include {{map\|12}}.)		::::::::::: Is 2-limit 12-ET (= contorted (order 12) 2-limit) a RT? Yes. It is a temperament because it calls itself a temperament and well-defined. (But I'll add: I've suggested we call this sort of thing a "temperoid"; I prefer to use the term "enfactored" rather than "contorted", and the point is that {{map\|12}} doesn't bring anything more to the table ''as a regular temperament'' than {{map\|1}} does, so if we wanted to make a list of all the unique regular temperaments in existence, we would include {{map\|1}} but we might not want to include {{map\|12}}.)
	::::::::::: Let me know if you have further questions, and I'll do my best to answer. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)		::::::::::: Let me know if you have further questions, and I'll do my best to answer. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

			:::::::::::: So I tried to get a one-to-one correspondence with the output by "enfactoring" the input by 12, and the result was the 2<sup>1/12</sup> domain basis. But I have just come to the conclusion that this has no practical significance. Mapping the equal-step tuning to an exponential function is no different from the generator chain, and there is nothing to do in 1D domain. Barely the 2-limit case is only useful for explaining as a edge case. --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 15:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

	== "Supports" ==		== "Supports" ==

Cmloegcmluin at 20:49, 26 June 2023

2023-06-26T20:49:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:49, 26 June 2023
Line 85:		Line 85:

	:::::::::: Just intonation and 12-EDO are tuning systems (sets of concrete pitches or intervals), not regular temperaments. However, for both of these tuning systems, you could choose a domain and calculate the [[simple map]] associated with that domain, and now you would have a regular temperament. For instance, p-limit just intonation with the identity matrix as the temperament map is a regular temperament (usually considered trivial for obvious reasons). 12-ET is indeed a regular temperament. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 15:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)		:::::::::: Just intonation and 12-EDO are tuning systems (sets of concrete pitches or intervals), not regular temperaments. However, for both of these tuning systems, you could choose a domain and calculate the [[simple map]] associated with that domain, and now you would have a regular temperament. For instance, p-limit just intonation with the identity matrix as the temperament map is a regular temperament (usually considered trivial for obvious reasons). 12-ET is indeed a regular temperament. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 15:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

			::::::::::: Thanks for that, Fredg999. Though I'd tweak that slightly. The simple map for an n-EDO is one simple way to get a regular temperament from an EDO, specifically an n-ET, but there are other possible maps you might want (optimal with respect to the tunings of a consonance set, for one of the very many definitions of optimal popularly used), and I think this is more straightforwardly understood as finding an n-ET from an n-EDO so much as it is finding an n-ET from n itself. Also, I don't think there's any sense in which one could calculate a simple map for JI, but maybe you didn't intend to suggest that. (Oh, except that the 1×1 identity matrix that interprets 2-limit JI as a trivial regular temperament would qualify as the simple map for an equal temperament, but that's decidedly an edge case!)
			::::::::::: Yes, Dummy index, thank you for the discussion too. This is helping me refine my understanding of the similarities and differences between all of these structures, too. Fredg999 has already given direct answers to your questions, but I'll supplement what they wrote by answering using your own choices:
			::::::::::: Is just intonation a RT? No. It is not a temperament because it does not call itself a temperament. (But I'll add: we can interpret JI as a trivial regular temperament, i.e. one that doesn't make any commas vanish.)
			::::::::::: Is 12-EDO a RT? No. It is not a temperament because it does not call itself a temperament. (But I'll add: more importantly, it's not a regular temperament because it doesn't map a domain such as JI.)
			::::::::::: Is 2-limit 12-ET (= contorted (order 12) 2-limit) a RT? Yes. It is a temperament because it calls itself a temperament and well-defined. (But I'll add: I've suggested we call this sort of thing a "temperoid"; I prefer to use the term "enfactored" rather than "contorted", and the point is that {{map\|12}} doesn't bring anything more to the table ''as a regular temperament'' than {{map\|1}} does, so if we wanted to make a list of all the unique regular temperaments in existence, we would include {{map\|1}} but we might not want to include {{map\|12}}.)
			::::::::::: Let me know if you have further questions, and I'll do my best to answer. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:49, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

	== "Supports" ==		== "Supports" ==

Fredg999: /* Opening statements */ re

2023-06-26T15:55:13Z

Opening statements: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:55, 26 June 2023
Line 83:		Line 83:
	:::::::::*# Yes. It is a temperament because it calls itself a temperament and well-defined.		:::::::::*# Yes. It is a temperament because it calls itself a temperament and well-defined.
	::::::::: --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 14:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)		::::::::: --[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 14:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

			:::::::::: Just intonation and 12-EDO are tuning systems (sets of concrete pitches or intervals), not regular temperaments. However, for both of these tuning systems, you could choose a domain and calculate the [[simple map]] associated with that domain, and now you would have a regular temperament. For instance, p-limit just intonation with the identity matrix as the temperament map is a regular temperament (usually considered trivial for obvious reasons). 12-ET is indeed a regular temperament. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 15:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

	== "Supports" ==		== "Supports" ==

Dummy index: /* Opening statements */

2023-06-26T14:27:16Z

Opening statements

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 :::::::: Perhaps, though, all you mean is, again, not that EDOs and ETs are both regular temperaments, but that they are both ''generated tunings'', as Fredg999 described, or in other words, that they can be visualized on a lattice. Even more specifically, they can both be visualized on 1D lattices. And one other thing they have in common is that both lattices' single dimension's generators represent an interval 2<sup>1/n</sup>, whether that's for n-ET or n-EDO, and whether or not this interval is tuned exactly. That much I can certainly agree with.
 :::::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 15:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
 == "Supports" ==

Cmloegcmluin: /* Opening statements */

2023-06-25T15:55:15Z

Opening statements

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:55, 25 June 2023
Line 57:		Line 57:
	::::::: Yes, it's ''a trivial temperament where no tempering is happening: no commas are tempered out''. Well... EDO is simple and appear in many places in theory. We must say this first. Next, I think about it according to the title ''EDO vs ET'', I dare to position them on the same layer (as a regular temperament) for a clear comparison. Clear comparison means simply and mathematically pointing out the difference, not long descriptions of different layers.		::::::: Yes, it's ''a trivial temperament where no tempering is happening: no commas are tempered out''. Well... EDO is simple and appear in many places in theory. We must say this first. Next, I think about it according to the title ''EDO vs ET'', I dare to position them on the same layer (as a regular temperament) for a clear comparison. Clear comparison means simply and mathematically pointing out the difference, not long descriptions of different layers.
	::::::: Sorry I can't judge if it will be an easy-to-understand explanation for beginners ...　--[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 14:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)		::::::: Sorry I can't judge if it will be an easy-to-understand explanation for beginners ...　--[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 14:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

			:::::::: Ah, ok. Thanks for explaining, Fredg999. It was the "domain" part that threw me off.
			:::::::: Dummy index, what you wrote would have made sense to me if you had simply written "basis" instead of "domain basis". That's because "domain" is a mathematical term in that context, and what it refers to is a space ''before some mapping occurs'', or the space that something gets mapped from. The opposite word of domain in this sense is "range"; that's the space ''after'' mapping, or the space that we map into. So when we apply this mathematical concept to our xenharmonic topic, the domain is our JI lattice, the mapping is tempering, and the range is our tempered lattice. Does that make sense? So you can see that in an EDO, no mapping happens; there's no domain or range, or said another way, it is a system that doesn't require any before-and-after aspect to understand. Yes, we can certainly look at an EDO on a 1D lattice, and say that 12-EDO has a basis of 2<sup>1/12</sup>, but this basis wouldn't be called a ''domain'' basis.
			:::::::: As for your most recent message:
			:::::::: * I do not think it is reasonable to say that an EDO is "a trivial temperament where no tempering is happening: no commas are tempered out"; that's a description I've used often for JI. I would say that JI does not need to be looked at as a temperament, but it's possible to look at it as a trivial temperament if you want. EDOs, on the other hand, cannot be looked at as temperaments in any meaningful way, trivial or otherwise. They just don't have anything to do with tempering at all.
			:::::::: * I also think it would be a bad idea to describe both EDOs and ETs as regular temperaments. I agree we should clearly/simply/mathematically point out their differences, but this way would be inaccurate and confusing.
			:::::::: Perhaps, though, all you mean is, again, not that EDOs and ETs are both regular temperaments, but that they are both ''generated tunings'', as Fredg999 described, or in other words, that they can be visualized on a lattice. Even more specifically, they can both be visualized on 1D lattices. And one other thing they have in common is that both lattices' single dimension's generators represent an interval 2<sup>1/n</sup>, whether that's for n-ET or n-EDO, and whether or not this interval is tuned exactly. That much I can certainly agree with.
			:::::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 15:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

	== "Supports" ==		== "Supports" ==

Dummy index: /* Opening statements */

2023-06-25T14:12:26Z

Opening statements

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:12, 25 June 2023
Line 54:		Line 54:

	:::::: I think Dummy index is trying to convey the idea that an EDO is a ''generated tuning'', and therefore it can be visualized on a lattice with a domain basis of 2<sup>1/n</sup>. In comparison, 5-limit JI can be visualized on a lattice with a domain basis of 2.3.5, or possibly 2.3/2.5/4. Generated tunings can easily be confused with regular temperaments, especially because there are common elements shared by the two concepts, so I think it's worth distinguishing them here and referring to the appropriate pages as necessary. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 05:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)		:::::: I think Dummy index is trying to convey the idea that an EDO is a ''generated tuning'', and therefore it can be visualized on a lattice with a domain basis of 2<sup>1/n</sup>. In comparison, 5-limit JI can be visualized on a lattice with a domain basis of 2.3.5, or possibly 2.3/2.5/4. Generated tunings can easily be confused with regular temperaments, especially because there are common elements shared by the two concepts, so I think it's worth distinguishing them here and referring to the appropriate pages as necessary. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 05:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

			::::::: Yes, it's ''a trivial temperament where no tempering is happening: no commas are tempered out''. Well... EDO is simple and appear in many places in theory. We must say this first. Next, I think about it according to the title ''EDO vs ET'', I dare to position them on the same layer (as a regular temperament) for a clear comparison. Clear comparison means simply and mathematically pointing out the difference, not long descriptions of different layers.
			::::::: Sorry I can't judge if it will be an easy-to-understand explanation for beginners ...　--[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 14:12, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

	== "Supports" ==		== "Supports" ==

Fredg999: /* Opening statements */ re

2023-06-25T05:22:53Z

Opening statements: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:22, 25 June 2023
Line 52:		Line 52:
	:::::: I think that using the verb "map" for an EDO has more potential to create confusion than it does to increase clarity. It would be better to reserve that word for temperaments — which are based on linear ''map''pings — and then use "round" for EDOs, as I've described above. What does "map" bring to the table that "round" doesn't, in your point of view? Why couldn't you just say that 12-EDO ''rounds'' 2<sup>1/3</sup> to a stack of 4 generators? Though I'm not sure what insights this statement is supposed to provide in the first place.		:::::: I think that using the verb "map" for an EDO has more potential to create confusion than it does to increase clarity. It would be better to reserve that word for temperaments — which are based on linear ''map''pings — and then use "round" for EDOs, as I've described above. What does "map" bring to the table that "round" doesn't, in your point of view? Why couldn't you just say that 12-EDO ''rounds'' 2<sup>1/3</sup> to a stack of 4 generators? Though I'm not sure what insights this statement is supposed to provide in the first place.
	:::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)		:::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

			:::::: I think Dummy index is trying to convey the idea that an EDO is a ''generated tuning'', and therefore it can be visualized on a lattice with a domain basis of 2<sup>1/n</sup>. In comparison, 5-limit JI can be visualized on a lattice with a domain basis of 2.3.5, or possibly 2.3/2.5/4. Generated tunings can easily be confused with regular temperaments, especially because there are common elements shared by the two concepts, so I think it's worth distinguishing them here and referring to the appropriate pages as necessary. --[[User:Fredg999\|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999\|talk]]) 05:22, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

	== "Supports" ==		== "Supports" ==

Cmloegcmluin: /* Opening statements */

2023-06-24T20:19:39Z

Opening statements

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:19, 24 June 2023
Line 47:		Line 47:

	::::: Hello. I hope it is written in the style of RTT how to describe the EDO as a non-JI abstract temperament (even if it doesn't make much sense to do so). e. g. 12edo is "2<sup>1/12</sup> domain basis" (and 2<sup>1/12</sup>.5 is for "no-threes compton temperament.") e. g. Whereas 5-limit 12-ET maps 5/4 to a stack of 4 generators, 12-EDO maps 2<sup>1/3</sup> to a stack of 4 generators.--[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 06:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)		::::: Hello. I hope it is written in the style of RTT how to describe the EDO as a non-JI abstract temperament (even if it doesn't make much sense to do so). e. g. 12edo is "2<sup>1/12</sup> domain basis" (and 2<sup>1/12</sup>.5 is for "no-threes compton temperament.") e. g. Whereas 5-limit 12-ET maps 5/4 to a stack of 4 generators, 12-EDO maps 2<sup>1/3</sup> to a stack of 4 generators.--[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 06:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

			:::::: Hello, Dummy index. Sorry, but I don't understand most of what you're saying. I do think you're correct to say that EDOs do not make much sense to describe as temperaments. But then the rest of your message seems to go against that, so I'm confused.
			:::::: When you say "2<sup>1/12</sup> domain basis", that conveys that 2<sup>1/12</sup> is a system you're tempering, but that's not the case, at least as far as I understand things. (On the other hand, it does make sense to say "2.3.5 domain basis" or "5-limit domain basis", because 5-limit JI is a system that we do often temper, e.g. by 12-ET.)
			:::::: I think that using the verb "map" for an EDO has more potential to create confusion than it does to increase clarity. It would be better to reserve that word for temperaments — which are based on linear ''map''pings — and then use "round" for EDOs, as I've described above. What does "map" bring to the table that "round" doesn't, in your point of view? Why couldn't you just say that 12-EDO ''rounds'' 2<sup>1/3</sup> to a stack of 4 generators? Though I'm not sure what insights this statement is supposed to provide in the first place.
			:::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

	== "Supports" ==		== "Supports" ==

Dummy index: /* Opening statements */

2023-06-24T06:54:08Z

Opening statements

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:54, 24 June 2023
Line 45:		Line 45:
	:::: If I don't get any pushback here or further suggestions, I can take a crack at making these improvements next week.		:::: If I don't get any pushback here or further suggestions, I can take a crack at making these improvements next week.
	:::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)		:::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

			::::: Hello. I hope it is written in the style of RTT how to describe the EDO as a non-JI abstract temperament (even if it doesn't make much sense to do so). e. g. 12edo is "2<sup>1/12</sup> domain basis" (and 2<sup>1/12</sup>.5 is for "no-threes compton temperament.") e. g. Whereas 5-limit 12-ET maps 5/4 to a stack of 4 generators, 12-EDO maps 2<sup>1/3</sup> to a stack of 4 generators.--[[User:Dummy index\|Dummy index]] ([[User talk:Dummy index\|talk]]) 06:54, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

	== "Supports" ==		== "Supports" ==