Talk:Porcupine - Revision history

Sintel: re porkypine

2025-04-22T21:14:08Z

re porkypine

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:14, 22 April 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:

	– [[User:Sintel\|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 20:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)		– [[User:Sintel\|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 20:58, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

			: By the way, it's not just me, this really is ridiculous. Historical record of it's naming is basically gws proposing it and then other people saying they think it's a bad idea:
			: https://yahootuninggroupsultimatebackup.github.io/tuning/topicId_104838.html
			: I couldn't find any other mentions of it on the tuning group (though searching the archives is currently annoyingly hard). On the XA Discord, it has 36 mentions (compared to >3700 for porcupine), and half of them are related to the name being terrible and not the actual temperament.
			: – [[User:Sintel\|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 21:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Sintel at 20:58, 22 April 2025

2025-04-22T20:58:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:58, 22 April 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{WSArchiveLink}}		{{WSArchiveLink}}

			== Naming, once again ==

			Can we just pretend 'porkypine' never happened?

			– [[User:Sintel\|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 20:58, 22 April 2025 (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.~~

	~~----~~

	~~== Porcupine mode names ==~~
	~~If y'all still want some mode names, in absence of any better suggestions, named after the locations of certain famous rocks, I propose:~~

	ssssssL Allanian*

	~~sssssLs Blarnian~~

	~~ssssLss Ulurian~~

	~~sssLsss Gibraltarian~~

	~~ssLssss Plymouthian~~

	~~sLsssss Rosettan~~

	~~Lssssss Meteoran~~

	~~with porcupine[8] denoted by a suffix or prefix, eg. LLLLLLLs super-alanian, etc.~~

	~~<ul><li>the martian microbe rock "AH84001" found in Allan Hills, Antarctica.</li></ul>~~

	~~Up to you guys, I'm no porcupine expert.~~

	~~- '''Kosmorsky''' November 15, 2011, 10:47:55 AM UTC-0800~~
	~~----~~
	~~Uh, haha, maybe switch Blarnian and Ulurian.~~

	~~- '''Kosmorsky''' November 15, 2011, 10:54:04 AM UTC-0800~~
	~~----~~

	~~== Porkupine? ==~~
	~~Do we really want to call a subgroup temperament by the same name as a full p-limit temperament?~~

	~~- '''genewardsmith''' October 31, 2011, 02:55:03 PM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~
	I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I most certainly do. Calling it anything other than "porcupine" seems very silly. To me it just represents different ways of using the same musical system.

	If it's "allowed" to have a 2.3.5 temperament and a 2.3.5.7 temperament with the same name, then it should also be allowed to have a 2.3.5 temperament and a 2.3.5.11 temperament with the same name. How does that not make sense?

	~~- '''keenanpepper''' October 31, 2011, 04:12:31 PM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~
	Because saying I'm going to allow this, but not that, is a very different thing than saying I'm going to stop at this point. Your argument is that Bohlen-Pierce and bohpier should be called the same thing because they are the same thing, and I think that completely misses the point. And is your argument only applicable to subgroups defined by dropping a prime, and not the others? That makes no sense to me. Plus, there is the consistency issue.

	~~- '''genewardsmith''' October 31, 2011, 06:59:59 PM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~
	~~By "Bohlen-Pierce", I don't know whether you mean 13ed3 or the rank-2 3.5.7 temperament tempering out 245/243, but either way I don't see how it's anything other than a straw man.~~

	~~If by "Bohlen-Pierce" you mean 13ed3, then Bohlen-Pierce is rank-1 but bohpier is rank-2. Every temperament I want to call "porcupine" is rank-2, so it's not analogous.~~

	On the other hand, if "Bohlen-Pierce" is the rank-2 245/243 temperament, then bohpier tempers out 3125/3087 but Bohlen-Pierce contains 3125/3087 as a small interval which is not tempered out. In other words Bohlen-Pierce and bohpier do not agree on the 3.5.7 subgroup. 2.3.5 porcupine and 2.3.5.11 porcupine do agree on the 2.3.5 subgroup, so again, it is not analogous.

	~~I don't see how "dropping a prime" has anything to do with it.~~

	~~My reasoning is this:~~

	~~Mapping 11 to 4 octaves minus 4 generators is the "default" mapping of 11 for porcupine, because the 2.3.5.7.11 temperament is simply "porcupine" and not some other name.~~

	If I start with 2.3.5 porcupine and throw in 7 with the default mapping, I can still call that porcupine. It makes sense to call it this because if I simply ignore 7, I get back to exactly 2.3.5 porcupine again. They agree on the 2.3.5 subgroup.

	So, if I start with 2.3.5 porcupine and throw in 11 with the default mapping, why shouldn't I be able to call that porcupine too? If I ignore 11, I get exactly 2.3.5 porcupine, and 11 has the default mapping! What more perfect correspondence could you possibly want?

	~~What is "the consistency issue"?~~

	~~- '''keenanpepper''' October 31, 2011, 08:17:12 PM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~
	It wasn't the best example to start out with, but there are a lot of different species of subgroup temperaments, and which ones you plan on using your new naming system on and which ones not is a real question. What, for instance, about tutone, which is 2.9.5.7.11 with meantone commas--is that "meantone"? What is slendric, which is 2.3.7 with a 1029/1024 comma? What is bridgetown, in the 2.3.11/5.13/5 subgroup? The consistency issue relates to this question--it is my contention we ought to have a single, consistenly usable and used, system. Are you even proposing such a thing? I don't see it.

	~~- '''genewardsmith''' October 31, 2011, 09:42:55 PM UTC-0700~~
	~~----~~
	~~Let's move this conversation to the tuning list, where I just posted.~~

	~~- '''keenanpepper''' November 01, 2011, 10:46:07 AM 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.''' ''...

2018-09-20T07:00:50Z

← 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.'''
----

== Porcupine mode names ==
If y'all still want some mode names, in absence of any better suggestions, named after the locations of certain famous rocks, I propose:

ssssssL Allanian*

sssssLs Blarnian

ssssLss Ulurian

sssLsss Gibraltarian

ssLssss Plymouthian

sLsssss Rosettan

Lssssss Meteoran

with porcupine[8] denoted by a suffix or prefix, eg. LLLLLLLs super-alanian, etc.

<ul><li>the martian microbe rock "AH84001" found in Allan Hills, Antarctica.</li></ul>

Up to you guys, I'm no porcupine expert.

- '''Kosmorsky''' November 15, 2011, 10:47:55 AM UTC-0800
----
Uh, haha, maybe switch Blarnian and Ulurian.

- '''Kosmorsky''' November 15, 2011, 10:54:04 AM UTC-0800
----

== Porkupine? ==
Do we really want to call a subgroup temperament by the same name as a full p-limit temperament?

- '''genewardsmith''' October 31, 2011, 02:55:03 PM UTC-0700
----
I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I most certainly do. Calling it anything other than "porcupine" seems very silly. To me it just represents different ways of using the same musical system.

If it's "allowed" to have a 2.3.5 temperament and a 2.3.5.7 temperament with the same name, then it should also be allowed to have a 2.3.5 temperament and a 2.3.5.11 temperament with the same name. How does that not make sense?

- '''keenanpepper''' October 31, 2011, 04:12:31 PM UTC-0700
----
Because saying I'm going to allow this, but not that, is a very different thing than saying I'm going to stop at this point. Your argument is that Bohlen-Pierce and bohpier should be called the same thing because they are the same thing, and I think that completely misses the point. And is your argument only applicable to subgroups defined by dropping a prime, and not the others? That makes no sense to me. Plus, there is the consistency issue.

- '''genewardsmith''' October 31, 2011, 06:59:59 PM UTC-0700
----
By "Bohlen-Pierce", I don't know whether you mean 13ed3 or the rank-2 3.5.7 temperament tempering out 245/243, but either way I don't see how it's anything other than a straw man.

If by "Bohlen-Pierce" you mean 13ed3, then Bohlen-Pierce is rank-1 but bohpier is rank-2. Every temperament I want to call "porcupine" is rank-2, so it's not analogous.

On the other hand, if "Bohlen-Pierce" is the rank-2 245/243 temperament, then bohpier tempers out 3125/3087 but Bohlen-Pierce contains 3125/3087 as a small interval which is not tempered out. In other words Bohlen-Pierce and bohpier do not agree on the 3.5.7 subgroup. 2.3.5 porcupine and 2.3.5.11 porcupine *do* agree on the 2.3.5 subgroup, so again, it is not analogous.

I don't see how "dropping a prime" has anything to do with it.

My reasoning is this:

Mapping 11 to 4 octaves minus 4 generators is the "default" mapping of 11 for porcupine, because the 2.3.5.7.11 temperament is simply "porcupine" and not some other name.

If I start with 2.3.5 porcupine and throw in 7 with the default mapping, I can still call that porcupine. It makes sense to call it this because if I simply ignore 7, I get back to exactly 2.3.5 porcupine again. They agree on the 2.3.5 subgroup.

So, if I start with 2.3.5 porcupine and throw in 11 with the default mapping, why shouldn't I be able to call that porcupine too? If I ignore 11, I get exactly 2.3.5 porcupine, and 11 has the default mapping! What more perfect correspondence could you possibly want?

What is "the consistency issue"?

- '''keenanpepper''' October 31, 2011, 08:17:12 PM UTC-0700
----
It wasn't the best example to start out with, but there are a lot of different species of subgroup temperaments, and which ones you plan on using your new naming system on and which ones not is a real question. What, for instance, about tutone, which is 2.9.5.7.11 with meantone commas--is that "meantone"? What is slendric, which is 2.3.7 with a 1029/1024 comma? What is bridgetown, in the 2.3.11/5.13/5 subgroup? The consistency issue relates to this question--it is my contention we ought to have a single, consistenly usable and used, system. Are you even proposing such a thing? I don't see it.

- '''genewardsmith''' October 31, 2011, 09:42:55 PM UTC-0700
----
Let's move this conversation to the tuning list, where I just posted.

- '''keenanpepper''' November 01, 2011, 10:46:07 AM UTC-0700
----