Talk:MOS scale - Revision history

Tonwood: Undo revision 229534 by Tonwood (talk)

2026-05-03T08:54:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:54, 3 May 2026
Line 27:		Line 27:

	: I'd guess [[User:Inthar\|Inthar]] would be the right person to ask here. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 17:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)		: I'd guess [[User:Inthar\|Inthar]] would be the right person to ask here. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 17:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

	~~== But what is it? ==~~

	Apparently a moment of symmetry is considered a good (or at least interesting) feature for a scale to have, but what is it? That is, to what do the words ''moment'' and ''symmetry'' refer? Neither this article nor its ‘advanced’ sibling has an obvious answer. —[[User:Tonwood\|Tonwood]] ([[User talk:Tonwood\|talk]]) 08:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Tonwood: /* But what is it? */ new section

2026-05-03T08:52:31Z

But what is it?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:52, 3 May 2026
Line 27:		Line 27:

	: I'd guess [[User:Inthar\|Inthar]] would be the right person to ask here. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 17:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)		: I'd guess [[User:Inthar\|Inthar]] would be the right person to ask here. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 17:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

			== But what is it? ==

			Apparently a moment of symmetry is considered a good (or at least interesting) feature for a scale to have, but what is it? That is, to what do the words ''moment'' and ''symmetry'' refer? Neither this article nor its ‘advanced’ sibling has an obvious answer. —[[User:Tonwood\|Tonwood]] ([[User talk:Tonwood\|talk]]) 08:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Fredg999: Fix copy-paste error

2025-04-10T17:09:34Z

Fix copy-paste error

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 10 April 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WSArchiveLink}}		{{WSArchiveLink}}
	~~Move high~~ priority ~~to talk page~~		{{High priority}}
	__TOC__		__TOC__
	== More notational stuff ==		== More notational stuff ==

Fredg999: Move high priority to talk page

2025-04-10T17:09:09Z

Move high priority to talk page

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:09, 10 April 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WSArchiveLink}}		{{WSArchiveLink}}
			Move high priority to talk page
	__TOC__		__TOC__
	== More notational stuff ==		== More notational stuff ==

Xenwolf: /* Soft/hard */ re

2021-04-16T17:32:32Z

Soft/hard: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:32, 16 April 2021
Line 24:		Line 24:

	Soft and hard redirect here but there is no information on them here. Please figure out a better path for people to use the wiki to discover information about hard/soft MOS. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 14:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)		Soft and hard redirect here but there is no information on them here. Please figure out a better path for people to use the wiki to discover information about hard/soft MOS. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 14:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

			: I'd guess [[User:Inthar\|Inthar]] would be the right person to ask here. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 17:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Xenwolf: +toc

2021-04-16T17:31:36Z

+toc

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:31, 16 April 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WSArchiveLink}}		{{WSArchiveLink}}
			__TOC__
	== More notational stuff ==		== More notational stuff ==

Cmloegcmluin at 14:50, 16 April 2021

2021-04-16T14:50:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:50, 16 April 2021
Line 19:		Line 19:

	: Ah, I see [[Subgroup temperaments]] in particular. That article would be helpful, thank you all for making it! --[[User:Arseniiv\|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv\|talk]]) 15:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)		: Ah, I see [[Subgroup temperaments]] in particular. That article would be helpful, thank you all for making it! --[[User:Arseniiv\|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv\|talk]]) 15:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


			== Soft/hard ==

			Soft and hard redirect here but there is no information on them here. Please figure out a better path for people to use the wiki to discover information about hard/soft MOS. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 14:50, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Mike Battaglia: more terminology conflicts

2021-04-12T20:29:20Z

more terminology conflicts

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:29, 12 April 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WSArchiveLink}}		{{WSArchiveLink}}

			== More notational stuff ==

			The user IIL suggested the name "mmos5" for what people typically refer to as the "small fifth" of a generic MOS. Since there is terminology already in use, I changed it to that.

			I will reiterate what I said in the page about "Vals:" these are "main" math pages that you are editing with your system, and the people who typically maintain all these pages are getting antsy about such an enormous volume of edits being made without collaborating with the other users. We are all on FB and I suggest joining us there (using a pseudonymous FB account if you don't want to use your real name, as about half the members do).

			If not, then if you want to make a new system or naming convention, we would like it if you could make another section on the site where you folks (who are primarily on Discord?) can be free to do what you want, without running on top of the other collaboration going on here. For instance, there are already two or three other MOS naming "systems" on the Wiki; it doesn't seem like the one you have written here should be the "main" one that is part of the main "MOS" page. It would be nice to make a category called something like "Discord Work In Progress" and then we can look at merging things into the "main" pages afterward, when you are done polishing them up.

			Thanks. [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia\|talk]]) 20:29, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


	== Good MOS for a particular JI subgroup ==		== Good MOS for a particular JI subgroup ==

Arseniiv: /* Good MOS for a particular JI subgroup */ added a note to self and thanks to you

2020-10-12T15:25:52Z

Good MOS for a particular JI subgroup: added a note to self and thanks to you

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:25, 12 October 2020
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Also in that vein, maybe you know some shiny MOS which greatly differs from EDOs smaller than ~20edo? (and with not too many steps?..) I experimented with several modes (MOS and otherwise) of 22edo, 19edo, 17edo and several other EDOs but hopefully there is a nice MOS somewhere which doesn’t want to fit as an EDO mode without making the original intervals greatly worse. --[[User:Arseniiv\|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv\|talk]]) 11:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)		Also in that vein, maybe you know some shiny MOS which greatly differs from EDOs smaller than ~20edo? (and with not too many steps?..) I experimented with several modes (MOS and otherwise) of 22edo, 19edo, 17edo and several other EDOs but hopefully there is a nice MOS somewhere which doesn’t want to fit as an EDO mode without making the original intervals greatly worse. --[[User:Arseniiv\|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv\|talk]]) 11:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

			: Ah, I see [[Subgroup temperaments]] in particular. That article would be helpful, thank you all for making it! --[[User:Arseniiv\|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv\|talk]]) 15:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Arseniiv: /* Good MOS for a particular JI subgroup */ new section

2020-10-07T11:10:16Z

Good MOS for a particular JI subgroup: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:10, 7 October 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WSArchiveLink}}		{{WSArchiveLink}}

			== Good MOS for a particular JI subgroup ==

			Hi! Is there a clever way to find MOS scales which represent, say 2.7.11 or 2.3.7 JI subgroups better than EDOs with comparable number of steps? Simple calculations or workflows for Scala are all good.

			Also in that vein, maybe you know some shiny MOS which greatly differs from EDOs smaller than ~20edo? (and with not too many steps?..) I experimented with several modes (MOS and otherwise) of 22edo, 19edo, 17edo and several other EDOs but hopefully there is a nice MOS somewhere which doesn’t want to fit as an EDO mode without making the original intervals greatly worse. --[[User:Arseniiv\|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv\|talk]]) 11:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)