Talk:PFDO - Revision history

FloraC: re

2024-06-02T11:45:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:45, 2 June 2024
Line 17:		Line 17:

	: Update: I did notice that when I took the mean of the formula results for p=1 and p=-1, it gave an answer that was close to the expected value for p=0. (Any error may have been rounding error from not using enough decimal places?) Is that what I'm supposed to do for p=0, use p=1 and p=-1 and then take the average of the two answers? If so, it would be worth explicitly saying that in the page. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)		: Update: I did notice that when I took the mean of the formula results for p=1 and p=-1, it gave an answer that was close to the expected value for p=0. (Any error may have been rounding error from not using enough decimal places?) Is that what I'm supposed to do for p=0, use p=1 and p=-1 and then take the average of the two answers? If so, it would be worth explicitly saying that in the page. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

			:: All fixed. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

	== Divisions of non-octave intervals ==		== Divisions of non-octave intervals ==
Line 23:		Line 25:

	If so, this is definitely worth mentioning as well. Or, if you've already described this in another page, then it's worth linking to that page at the end of this one. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)		If so, this is definitely worth mentioning as well. Or, if you've already described this in another page, then it's worth linking to that page at the end of this one. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

			: It is possible. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: /* The formula */

2023-04-29T05:21:56Z

The formula

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:21, 29 April 2023
Line 14:		Line 14:
	It might also be worth saying in the article that this formula gives the answer as a frequency, not a pitch. I think most people will figure that out on their own, but just in case, I think it's still worth clarifying.		It might also be worth saying in the article that this formula gives the answer as a frequency, not a pitch. I think most people will figure that out on their own, but just in case, I think it's still worth clarifying.

	One other thing is that, because of the "1/P", the formula requires you to divide by zero if you want to calculate an EDO degree, which results in the answer being "undefined". Is that supposed to happen? If so, that's worth warning people about in the article. I feel like that's not supposed to happen and I might be doing something wrong? If I am doing something wrong, it might be worth telling people in the article how to avoid doing whatever dumb thing I did, ~~because I guarantee other people will make the same mistake~~. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)		One other thing is that, because of the "1/P", the formula requires you to divide by zero if you want to calculate an EDO degree, which results in the answer being "undefined". Is that supposed to happen? If so, that's worth warning people about in the article. I feel like that's not supposed to happen and I might be doing something wrong? If I am doing something wrong, it might be worth telling people in the article how to avoid doing whatever dumb thing I did, hehe. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

	: Update: I did notice that when I took the mean of the formula results for p=1 and p=-1, it gave an answer that was close to the expected value for p=0. (Any error may have been rounding error from not using enough decimal places?) Is that what I'm supposed to do for p=0, use p=1 and p=-1 and then take the average of the two answers? If so, it would be worth explicitly saying that in the page. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)		: Update: I did notice that when I took the mean of the formula results for p=1 and p=-1, it gave an answer that was close to the expected value for p=0. (Any error may have been rounding error from not using enough decimal places?) Is that what I'm supposed to do for p=0, use p=1 and p=-1 and then take the average of the two answers? If so, it would be worth explicitly saying that in the page. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: /* The formula */

2023-04-25T09:13:50Z

The formula

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:13, 25 April 2023
Line 16:		Line 16:
	One other thing is that, because of the "1/P", the formula requires you to divide by zero if you want to calculate an EDO degree, which results in the answer being "undefined". Is that supposed to happen? If so, that's worth warning people about in the article. I feel like that's not supposed to happen and I might be doing something wrong? If I am doing something wrong, it might be worth telling people in the article how to avoid doing whatever dumb thing I did, because I guarantee other people will make the same mistake. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)		One other thing is that, because of the "1/P", the formula requires you to divide by zero if you want to calculate an EDO degree, which results in the answer being "undefined". Is that supposed to happen? If so, that's worth warning people about in the article. I feel like that's not supposed to happen and I might be doing something wrong? If I am doing something wrong, it might be worth telling people in the article how to avoid doing whatever dumb thing I did, because I guarantee other people will make the same mistake. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

	: Update: I did notice that when I took the mean of the formula results for p=1 and p=-1, it gave an answer that was close to the expected value for p=0. (Any error may have been rounding error from not using enough decimal places?) Is that what I'm supposed to do for p=0, use p=1 and p=-1 and then take the average of the two answers? If so, it would be worth explicitly saying that in the page.		: Update: I did notice that when I took the mean of the formula results for p=1 and p=-1, it gave an answer that was close to the expected value for p=0. (Any error may have been rounding error from not using enough decimal places?) Is that what I'm supposed to do for p=0, use p=1 and p=-1 and then take the average of the two answers? If so, it would be worth explicitly saying that in the page. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

	== Divisions of non-octave intervals ==		== Divisions of non-octave intervals ==

BudjarnLambeth: /* The formula */

2023-04-25T09:13:34Z

The formula

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:13, 25 April 2023
Line 15:		Line 15:

	One other thing is that, because of the "1/P", the formula requires you to divide by zero if you want to calculate an EDO degree, which results in the answer being "undefined". Is that supposed to happen? If so, that's worth warning people about in the article. I feel like that's not supposed to happen and I might be doing something wrong? If I am doing something wrong, it might be worth telling people in the article how to avoid doing whatever dumb thing I did, because I guarantee other people will make the same mistake. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)		One other thing is that, because of the "1/P", the formula requires you to divide by zero if you want to calculate an EDO degree, which results in the answer being "undefined". Is that supposed to happen? If so, that's worth warning people about in the article. I feel like that's not supposed to happen and I might be doing something wrong? If I am doing something wrong, it might be worth telling people in the article how to avoid doing whatever dumb thing I did, because I guarantee other people will make the same mistake. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

			: Update: I did notice that when I took the mean of the formula results for p=1 and p=-1, it gave an answer that was close to the expected value for p=0. (Any error may have been rounding error from not using enough decimal places?) Is that what I'm supposed to do for p=0, use p=1 and p=-1 and then take the average of the two answers? If so, it would be worth explicitly saying that in the page.

	== Divisions of non-octave intervals ==		== Divisions of non-octave intervals ==

BudjarnLambeth at 09:11, 25 April 2023

2023-04-25T09:11:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:11, 25 April 2023
Line 14:		Line 14:
	It might also be worth saying in the article that this formula gives the answer as a frequency, not a pitch. I think most people will figure that out on their own, but just in case, I think it's still worth clarifying.		It might also be worth saying in the article that this formula gives the answer as a frequency, not a pitch. I think most people will figure that out on their own, but just in case, I think it's still worth clarifying.

	One other thing is that, because of the "1/P", the formula requires you to divide by zero if you want to calculate an EDO degree, which results in the answer being "undefined". Is that supposed to happen? If so, that's worth warning people about in the article. I feel like that's not supposed to happen and I might be doing something wrong? If I am doing something wrong, it might be worth telling people in the article how to avoid doing whatever dumb thing I did, because I guarantee other people will make the same mistake.		One other thing is that, because of the "1/P", the formula requires you to divide by zero if you want to calculate an EDO degree, which results in the answer being "undefined". Is that supposed to happen? If so, that's worth warning people about in the article. I feel like that's not supposed to happen and I might be doing something wrong? If I am doing something wrong, it might be worth telling people in the article how to avoid doing whatever dumb thing I did, because I guarantee other people will make the same mistake. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

	== Divisions of non-octave intervals ==		== Divisions of non-octave intervals ==
Line 20:		Line 20:
	Is it also possible to generalise this to non-octave intervals? E.g., could you have an AFD3 or IFD3 analogous to an ED3? Could you have an AFD3/2 or IFD3/2 analogous to an ED3/2?		Is it also possible to generalise this to non-octave intervals? E.g., could you have an AFD3 or IFD3 analogous to an ED3? Could you have an AFD3/2 or IFD3/2 analogous to an ED3/2?

	If so, this is definitely worth mentioning as well. Or, if you've already described this in another page, then it's worth linking to that page at the end of this one.		If so, this is definitely worth mentioning as well. Or, if you've already described this in another page, then it's worth linking to that page at the end of this one. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth\|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth\|talk]]) 09:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

BudjarnLambeth: /* The formula */

2023-04-25T09:07:33Z

The formula

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:07, 25 April 2023
Line 9:		Line 9:
	If this is intentional, it might be worth mentioning in the article that it gives the scale degrees counting down from the root, not up.		If this is intentional, it might be worth mentioning in the article that it gives the scale degrees counting down from the root, not up.

	If this is not intentional, and you are intending for the formula to give ~~notes~~ in ''ascending'' order instead, then I think this formula would work:		If this is not intentional, and you are intending for the formula to give scale degrees in ''ascending'' order instead, then I think this formula would work:
	'''((b-a)/b + 2<sup>p</sup> * a/b)<sup>1/p</sup>''' It gives me the answers ascending up the scale rather than descending down.		'''((b-a)/b + 2<sup>p</sup> * a/b)<sup>1/p</sup>''' It gives me the answers ascending up the scale rather than descending down.

BudjarnLambeth: /* Possible ways to clarify and expand the article */ new section

2023-04-25T09:07:00Z

Possible ways to clarify and expand the article: new section

← Older revision	Revision as of 09:07, 25 April 2023
Line 1:	Line 1:
		== Possible ways to clarify and expand the article ==

		== The formula ==

		When I use the formula '''(a/b + 2<sup>p</sup> * (b-a)/b)<sup>1/p</sup>''', it does give me reasonable answers, but it gives the answers going in degrees ''down'' the scale, not up the scale.

		For example, it tells me that the 7th interval of 12AFDO is 1.417, which is true if you count down from the root, not up. And it tells me the 7th interval of 12IFDO is 1.263, which again is true if you count down from the root instead of up.

		If this is intentional, it might be worth mentioning in the article that it gives the scale degrees counting down from the root, not up.

		If this is not intentional, and you are intending for the formula to give notes in ''ascending'' order instead, then I think this formula would work:
		'''((b-a)/b + 2<sup>p</sup> * a/b)<sup>1/p</sup>''' It gives me the answers ascending up the scale rather than descending down.

		It might also be worth saying in the article that this formula gives the answer as a frequency, not a pitch. I think most people will figure that out on their own, but just in case, I think it's still worth clarifying.

		One other thing is that, because of the "1/P", the formula requires you to divide by zero if you want to calculate an EDO degree, which results in the answer being "undefined". Is that supposed to happen? If so, that's worth warning people about in the article. I feel like that's not supposed to happen and I might be doing something wrong? If I am doing something wrong, it might be worth telling people in the article how to avoid doing whatever dumb thing I did, because I guarantee other people will make the same mistake.

		== Divisions of non-octave intervals ==

		Is it also possible to generalise this to non-octave intervals? E.g., could you have an AFD3 or IFD3 analogous to an ED3? Could you have an AFD3/2 or IFD3/2 analogous to an ED3/2?

		If so, this is definitely worth mentioning as well. Or, if you've already described this in another page, then it's worth linking to that page at the end of this one.

BudjarnLambeth: Created blank page

2023-04-25T08:38:03Z

Created blank page

New page