Talk:Optimal patent val - Revision history

Cmloegcmluin: /* Not a val? */

2021-09-30T18:29:16Z

Not a val?

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:29, 30 September 2021
Line 12:		Line 12:

	: From what I know the OPV ''is'' a val. Using edo here is incorrect and may be only for the reason of convenient linking. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)		: From what I know the OPV ''is'' a val. Using edo here is incorrect and may be only for the reason of convenient linking. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

			:: Okay. I'll assume you're correct that the core item of interest here is truly a val and therefore that the use of EDOs in the tables is incorrect, and I've corrected that (at least I put a bandage over it, replacing "Optimal patent val" in the "header" with "ET w/ optimal patent val", and changing link text from EDO to ET for consistency). --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 18:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

FloraC: /* Not a val? */ re

2021-06-29T02:48:16Z

Not a val?: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:48, 29 June 2021
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Separately I am proposing "simple" as an alternative for "patent", so even better would be "optimal simply-mapped EDO", if you agree with the reasons for simple over patent. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)		Separately I am proposing "simple" as an alternative for "patent", so even better would be "optimal simply-mapped EDO", if you agree with the reasons for simple over patent. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

			: From what I know the OPV ''is'' a val. Using edo here is incorrect and may be only for the reason of convenient linking. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: /* Not a val? */

2021-06-28T22:41:03Z

Not a val?

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:41, 28 June 2021
Line 9:		Line 9:
	I've been thinking about this concept. It seems like vals are only intermediary here. The actual results, as evidenced by the tables, are not the patent vals per se, but the EDOs possessing them. So maybe "optimal patently-mapped EDO" would be a clearer name for this object. This would make it clear that it is the val which is patent by one concept, and the EDO which is optimal by an entirely separate concept.		I've been thinking about this concept. It seems like vals are only intermediary here. The actual results, as evidenced by the tables, are not the patent vals per se, but the EDOs possessing them. So maybe "optimal patently-mapped EDO" would be a clearer name for this object. This would make it clear that it is the val which is patent by one concept, and the EDO which is optimal by an entirely separate concept.

	Separately I am proposing "simple" as an alternative for "patent", so even better would be "optimal simply-mapped EDO", if you agree with the reasons for simple over patent.		Separately I am proposing "simple" as an alternative for "patent", so even better would be "optimal simply-mapped EDO", if you agree with the reasons for simple over patent. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: terminology suggestion

2021-06-28T22:40:51Z

terminology suggestion

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:40, 28 June 2021
Line 4:		Line 4:

	A badness unit (''BU'' is just a placeholder) would help to factor out the factors and we could write ''mBU'' or ''µBU'' instead. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)		A badness unit (''BU'' is just a placeholder) would help to factor out the factors and we could write ''mBU'' or ''µBU'' instead. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

			== Not a val? ==

			I've been thinking about this concept. It seems like vals are only intermediary here. The actual results, as evidenced by the tables, are not the patent vals per se, but the EDOs possessing them. So maybe "optimal patently-mapped EDO" would be a clearer name for this object. This would make it clear that it is the val which is patent by one concept, and the EDO which is optimal by an entirely separate concept.

			Separately I am proposing "simple" as an alternative for "patent", so even better would be "optimal simply-mapped EDO", if you agree with the reasons for simple over patent.

Xenwolf: /* Badness unit? */ new section

2020-12-10T11:08:15Z

Badness unit?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:08, 10 December 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WSArchiveLink}}		{{WSArchiveLink}}

			== Badness unit? ==

			A badness unit (''BU'' is just a placeholder) would help to factor out the factors and we could write ''mBU'' or ''µBU'' instead. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 11:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

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

2018-10-01T18:02:41Z

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.~~

	~~----~~

	~~== Laconic family ==~~
	I don't have a subroutine for computing the optimal patent val and no time to write one now. If anyone has a second, would someone mind working out what it is for laconic temperament, which eliminates 2187/2000? I think it'll be 21p but I'm not sure.

	~~Thanks~~

	~~- '''mbattaglia1''' October 18, 2011, 12:55:14 PM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~
	~~If added to the optimal patent val page, it would be~~

	~~2187/2000: 21edo 5&16 161.799~~

	~~with an optimal patent val of 21. However, it has a badness figure much higher than the other commas listed (it really only starts to make sense in the 7-limit.)~~

	~~- '''genewardsmith''' October 18, 2011, 01:23:42 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.''' ''...

2018-09-20T07:00:46Z

← 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.'''
----

== Laconic family ==
I don't have a subroutine for computing the optimal patent val and no time to write one now. If anyone has a second, would someone mind working out what it is for laconic temperament, which eliminates 2187/2000? I think it'll be 21p but I'm not sure.

Thanks

- '''mbattaglia1''' October 18, 2011, 12:55:14 PM UTC-0700
----
If added to the optimal patent val page, it would be

2187/2000: 21edo 5&16 161.799

with an optimal patent val of 21. However, it has a badness figure much higher than the other commas listed (it really only starts to make sense in the 7-limit.)

- '''genewardsmith''' October 18, 2011, 01:23:42 PM UTC-0700
----