Talk:Target tuning - Revision history

FloraC: Status update

2026-03-18T13:23:46Z

Status update

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 18 March 2026
Line 6:		Line 6:
	: I agree with your suggestion. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)		: I agree with your suggestion. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

	: Fixed. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 14:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)		: Fixed. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 14:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

	== Typo in last section ==		== Typo in last section ==
	I believe where it says {{map\|1 0 -9}} it should say {{map\|1 0 -4}}, which would actually be meantone's period map. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)		I believe where it says {{map\|1 0 -9}} it should say {{map\|1 0 -4}}, which would actually be meantone's period map. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

	: Fixed. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 14:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)		: Fixed. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 14:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

	== Eigendecomposition ==		== Eigendecomposition ==
Line 32:		Line 32:
	== Suggested improvement to the tie-breaking solution for the "Minimax" section ==		== Suggested improvement to the tie-breaking solution for the "Minimax" section ==
	This page suggests that one should fall back to the miniRMS method to tie-break between tied minimax tunings, but that sort of misses the point of the problem. The two tied points are on extreme opposite ends of the slice of good solutions, and the optimum solution lies somewhere in between them. We don't want the tie-break to choose one or the other extreme; we want to find a better solution somewhere in between them. Instead, a power limit method should be used here, such as discussed [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT/Tuning computation#Tie breaking: Power limit method\|here]]. (More context for this issue may also be found around this footnote: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Generator_embedding_optimization#cite_note-14 .) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)		This page suggests that one should fall back to the miniRMS method to tie-break between tied minimax tunings, but that sort of misses the point of the problem. The two tied points are on extreme opposite ends of the slice of good solutions, and the optimum solution lies somewhere in between them. We don't want the tie-break to choose one or the other extreme; we want to find a better solution somewhere in between them. Instead, a power limit method should be used here, such as discussed [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT/Tuning computation#Tie breaking: Power limit method\|here]]. (More context for this issue may also be found around this footnote: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Generator_embedding_optimization#cite_note-14 .) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

			: Fixed. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 13:23, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

	== The "minimax" method as described here is more generally a "miniaverage" method ==		== The "minimax" method as described here is more generally a "miniaverage" method ==
Line 41:		Line 43:
	By the way, this appears to be the seventh change I've requested to this page, without action on them being taken. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 23:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)		By the way, this appears to be the seventh change I've requested to this page, without action on them being taken. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 23:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

	: Fixed. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 14:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)		: Fixed. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 14:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

ArrowHead294: Update links

2024-11-02T17:55:49Z

Update links

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:55, 2 November 2024
Line 9:		Line 9:

	== Typo in last section ==		== Typo in last section ==

	I believe where it says {{map\|1 0 -9}} it should say {{map\|1 0 -4}}, which would actually be meantone's period map. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)		I believe where it says {{map\|1 0 -9}} it should say {{map\|1 0 -4}}, which would actually be meantone's period map. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Line 15:		Line 14:

	== Eigendecomposition ==		== Eigendecomposition ==

	With some help from Sintel, I was able to understand this page. It was not at all clear to me that it was necessary to take the assembled set of eigenvectors and then perform an eigendecomposition to get the projection matrix. Perhaps this is intuitive or obvious for many readers, but for beginners it would definitely help to state that explicitly or show that step. I believe Keenan Pepper said he was going to overhaul this page soon anyway, though. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)		With some help from Sintel, I was able to understand this page. It was not at all clear to me that it was necessary to take the assembled set of eigenvectors and then perform an eigendecomposition to get the projection matrix. Perhaps this is intuitive or obvious for many readers, but for beginners it would definitely help to state that explicitly or show that step. I believe Keenan Pepper said he was going to overhaul this page soon anyway, though. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Line 23:		Line 21:

	== Use by Fokker ==		== Use by Fokker ==

	According to Mike Battaglia, "unweighted least-squares" is the way Fokker tuned, which we believe is a reference to the tuning scheme described in the "Least squares tunings" section of this page. Because Fokker is an important theoretician who laid groundwork for RTT, I'd like to add that historical detail (preferably with a citation, if we can find it). --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)		According to Mike Battaglia, "unweighted least-squares" is the way Fokker tuned, which we believe is a reference to the tuning scheme described in the "Least squares tunings" section of this page. Because Fokker is an important theoretician who laid groundwork for RTT, I'd like to add that historical detail (preferably with a citation, if we can find it). --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

	== Links to more in-depth explanations of these methods ==		== Links to more in-depth explanations of these methods ==
			The "Target tunings" described on this page are not discussed widely on the wiki. Until the recent addition of [[D&D's guide]], this was pretty much the only place where they were described at all. D&D's guide treats these as the most basic/fundamental of RTT tuning schemes and explains them in much more detail. I suggest this page should link to the article of D&D's guide that focuses on this: [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT/Tuning fundamentals]].
	The "Target tunings" described on this page are not discussed widely on the wiki. Until the recent addition of [[D&D's guide]], this was pretty much the only place where they were described at all. D&D's guide treats these as the most basic/fundamental of RTT tuning schemes and explains them in much more detail. I suggest this page should link to the article of D&D's guide that focuses on this: [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT~~: tuning~~ fundamentals]].

	The "Least squares tunings" section of this page very briefly describes and gives a method for computing a tuning scheme which in D&D's guide is systematically named "held-octave OLD miniRMS-U". This computation method is explained in detail here: [[Generator embedding optimization#Pseudoinverse method]]. I suggest this systematic tuning scheme name and link to more info should be provided.		The "Least squares tunings" section of this page very briefly describes and gives a method for computing a tuning scheme which in D&D's guide is systematically named "held-octave OLD miniRMS-U". This computation method is explained in detail here: [[Generator embedding optimization#Pseudoinverse method]]. I suggest this systematic tuning scheme name and link to more info should be provided.
Line 35:		Line 31:

	== Suggested improvement to the tie-breaking solution for the "Minimax" section ==		== Suggested improvement to the tie-breaking solution for the "Minimax" section ==
			This page suggests that one should fall back to the miniRMS method to tie-break between tied minimax tunings, but that sort of misses the point of the problem. The two tied points are on extreme opposite ends of the slice of good solutions, and the optimum solution lies somewhere in between them. We don't want the tie-break to choose one or the other extreme; we want to find a better solution somewhere in between them. Instead, a power limit method should be used here, such as discussed [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT/Tuning computation#Tie breaking: Power limit method\|here]]. (More context for this issue may also be found around this footnote: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Generator_embedding_optimization#cite_note-14 .) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
	This page suggests that one should fall back to the miniRMS method to tie-break between tied minimax tunings, but that sort of misses the point of the problem. The two tied points are on extreme opposite ends of the slice of good solutions, and the optimum solution lies somewhere in between them. We don't want the tie-break to choose one or the other extreme; we want to find a better solution somewhere in between them. Instead, a power limit method should be used here, such as discussed [[~~Dave_Keenan_%26_Douglas_Blumeyer%27s_guide_to_RTT:_tuning_computation~~#~~Tie_breaking~~:~~_power_limit_method~~\|here]]. (More context for this issue may also be found around this footnote: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Generator_embedding_optimization#cite_note-14 .) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

	== The "minimax" method as described here is more generally a "miniaverage" method ==		== The "minimax" method as described here is more generally a "miniaverage" method ==

	It only works for computing minimax tunings under two specific circumstances, both of which the page happens to meet (unity-weight damage, and all members of the target-interval set expressible as products of other members), but are not true in general. For more information, see: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Generator_embedding_optimization#cite_note-11 --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)		It only works for computing minimax tunings under two specific circumstances, both of which the page happens to meet (unity-weight damage, and all members of the target-interval set expressible as products of other members), but are not true in general. For more information, see: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Generator_embedding_optimization#cite_note-11 --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

	== Acknowledge "unchanged-interval" parenthetically after eigenmonzo ==		== Acknowledge "unchanged-interval" parenthetically after eigenmonzo ==

	A couple years back on the Xenwiki Work Group on Facebook a group decided to permit supplementing occurrences of the term "eigenmonzo" on the wiki with the plain-language "unchanged-interval". There is an occurrence here that I'd like to fix, but this page has been locked to admins only.		A couple years back on the Xenwiki Work Group on Facebook a group decided to permit supplementing occurrences of the term "eigenmonzo" on the wiki with the plain-language "unchanged-interval". There is an occurrence here that I'd like to fix, but this page has been locked to admins only.

FloraC at 14:25, 25 September 2023

2023-09-25T14:25:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:25, 25 September 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
			== "Overtone series" ==
	not sure why this page isn't editable to me, but I suggest fixing the lone reference "overtone series" to the proper term "harmonic series" --[[User:Wolftune\|Wolftune]] ([[User talk:Wolftune\|talk]]) 20:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)		not sure why this page isn't editable to me, but I suggest fixing the lone reference "overtone series" to the proper term "harmonic series" --[[User:Wolftune\|Wolftune]] ([[User talk:Wolftune\|talk]]) 20:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Line 4:		Line 5:

	: I agree with your suggestion. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)		: I agree with your suggestion. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

			: Fixed. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 14:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

	== Typo in last section ==		== Typo in last section ==

	I believe where it says {{map\|1 0 -9}} it should say {{map\|1 0 -4}}, which would actually be meantone's period map. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)		I believe where it says {{map\|1 0 -9}} it should say {{map\|1 0 -4}}, which would actually be meantone's period map. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

			: Fixed. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 14:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

	== Eigendecomposition ==		== Eigendecomposition ==
Line 42:		Line 47:

	By the way, this appears to be the seventh change I've requested to this page, without action on them being taken. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 23:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)		By the way, this appears to be the seventh change I've requested to this page, without action on them being taken. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 23:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

			: Fixed. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 14:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: /* Acknowledge "unchanged-interval" parenthetically after eigenmonzo */ new section

2023-05-05T23:23:23Z

Acknowledge "unchanged-interval" parenthetically after eigenmonzo: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:23, 5 May 2023
Line 36:		Line 36:

	It only works for computing minimax tunings under two specific circumstances, both of which the page happens to meet (unity-weight damage, and all members of the target-interval set expressible as products of other members), but are not true in general. For more information, see: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Generator_embedding_optimization#cite_note-11 --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)		It only works for computing minimax tunings under two specific circumstances, both of which the page happens to meet (unity-weight damage, and all members of the target-interval set expressible as products of other members), but are not true in general. For more information, see: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Generator_embedding_optimization#cite_note-11 --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

			== Acknowledge "unchanged-interval" parenthetically after eigenmonzo ==

			A couple years back on the Xenwiki Work Group on Facebook a group decided to permit supplementing occurrences of the term "eigenmonzo" on the wiki with the plain-language "unchanged-interval". There is an occurrence here that I'd like to fix, but this page has been locked to admins only.

			By the way, this appears to be the seventh change I've requested to this page, without action on them being taken. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 23:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: /* The "minimax" method as described here is more generally a "miniaverage" method */ new section

2023-01-30T22:52:28Z

The "minimax" method as described here is more generally a "miniaverage" method: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:52, 30 January 2023
Line 32:		Line 32:

	This page suggests that one should fall back to the miniRMS method to tie-break between tied minimax tunings, but that sort of misses the point of the problem. The two tied points are on extreme opposite ends of the slice of good solutions, and the optimum solution lies somewhere in between them. We don't want the tie-break to choose one or the other extreme; we want to find a better solution somewhere in between them. Instead, a power limit method should be used here, such as discussed [[Dave_Keenan_%26_Douglas_Blumeyer%27s_guide_to_RTT:_tuning_computation#Tie_breaking:_power_limit_method\|here]]. (More context for this issue may also be found around this footnote: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Generator_embedding_optimization#cite_note-14 .) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)		This page suggests that one should fall back to the miniRMS method to tie-break between tied minimax tunings, but that sort of misses the point of the problem. The two tied points are on extreme opposite ends of the slice of good solutions, and the optimum solution lies somewhere in between them. We don't want the tie-break to choose one or the other extreme; we want to find a better solution somewhere in between them. Instead, a power limit method should be used here, such as discussed [[Dave_Keenan_%26_Douglas_Blumeyer%27s_guide_to_RTT:_tuning_computation#Tie_breaking:_power_limit_method\|here]]. (More context for this issue may also be found around this footnote: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Generator_embedding_optimization#cite_note-14 .) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

			== The "minimax" method as described here is more generally a "miniaverage" method ==

			It only works for computing minimax tunings under two specific circumstances, both of which the page happens to meet (unity-weight damage, and all members of the target-interval set expressible as products of other members), but are not true in general. For more information, see: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Generator_embedding_optimization#cite_note-11 --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:52, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: /* Suggested improvement to the tie-breaking solution for the "Minimax" section */ new section

2023-01-30T22:51:40Z

Suggested improvement to the tie-breaking solution for the "Minimax" section: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:51, 30 January 2023
Line 28:		Line 28:

	The "Minimax tuning" section of this page very briefly describes and gives a method for computing a tuning scheme which in D&D's guide is systematically named "held-octave OLD minimax-U". This method is explained in more detail here: [[Generator embedding optimization#Coinciding-damage method]]. I suggest this systematic tuning scheme name and link to more info should be provided. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)		The "Minimax tuning" section of this page very briefly describes and gives a method for computing a tuning scheme which in D&D's guide is systematically named "held-octave OLD minimax-U". This method is explained in more detail here: [[Generator embedding optimization#Coinciding-damage method]]. I suggest this systematic tuning scheme name and link to more info should be provided. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

			== Suggested improvement to the tie-breaking solution for the "Minimax" section ==

			This page suggests that one should fall back to the miniRMS method to tie-break between tied minimax tunings, but that sort of misses the point of the problem. The two tied points are on extreme opposite ends of the slice of good solutions, and the optimum solution lies somewhere in between them. We don't want the tie-break to choose one or the other extreme; we want to find a better solution somewhere in between them. Instead, a power limit method should be used here, such as discussed [[Dave_Keenan_%26_Douglas_Blumeyer%27s_guide_to_RTT:_tuning_computation#Tie_breaking:_power_limit_method\|here]]. (More context for this issue may also be found around this footnote: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Generator_embedding_optimization#cite_note-14 .) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: /* Links to more in-depth explanations of these methods */ new section

2023-01-30T22:47:25Z

Links to more in-depth explanations of these methods: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:47, 30 January 2023
Line 20:		Line 20:

	According to Mike Battaglia, "unweighted least-squares" is the way Fokker tuned, which we believe is a reference to the tuning scheme described in the "Least squares tunings" section of this page. Because Fokker is an important theoretician who laid groundwork for RTT, I'd like to add that historical detail (preferably with a citation, if we can find it). --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)		According to Mike Battaglia, "unweighted least-squares" is the way Fokker tuned, which we believe is a reference to the tuning scheme described in the "Least squares tunings" section of this page. Because Fokker is an important theoretician who laid groundwork for RTT, I'd like to add that historical detail (preferably with a citation, if we can find it). --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

			== Links to more in-depth explanations of these methods ==

			The "Target tunings" described on this page are not discussed widely on the wiki. Until the recent addition of [[D&D's guide]], this was pretty much the only place where they were described at all. D&D's guide treats these as the most basic/fundamental of RTT tuning schemes and explains them in much more detail. I suggest this page should link to the article of D&D's guide that focuses on this: [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT: tuning fundamentals]].

			The "Least squares tunings" section of this page very briefly describes and gives a method for computing a tuning scheme which in D&D's guide is systematically named "held-octave OLD miniRMS-U". This computation method is explained in detail here: [[Generator embedding optimization#Pseudoinverse method]]. I suggest this systematic tuning scheme name and link to more info should be provided.

			The "Minimax tuning" section of this page very briefly describes and gives a method for computing a tuning scheme which in D&D's guide is systematically named "held-octave OLD minimax-U". This method is explained in more detail here: [[Generator embedding optimization#Coinciding-damage method]]. I suggest this systematic tuning scheme name and link to more info should be provided. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:47, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: /* Use by Fokker */ new section

2023-01-30T17:59:05Z

Use by Fokker: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:59, 30 January 2023
Line 16:		Line 16:
	: I'll see what others have to say first though.		: I'll see what others have to say first though.
	: - [[User:Sintel\|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 00:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)		: - [[User:Sintel\|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 00:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

			== Use by Fokker ==

			According to Mike Battaglia, "unweighted least-squares" is the way Fokker tuned, which we believe is a reference to the tuning scheme described in the "Least squares tunings" section of this page. Because Fokker is an important theoretician who laid groundwork for RTT, I'd like to add that historical detail (preferably with a citation, if we can find it). --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

FloraC: FloraC moved page Talk:Target tunings to Talk:Target tuning: WP:PLURAL

2022-08-01T11:59:18Z

FloraC moved page Talk:Target tunings to Talk:Target tuning: WP:PLURAL

← Older revision	Revision as of 11:59, 1 August 2022
(No difference)

Sintel at 00:21, 23 February 2022

2022-02-23T00:21:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:21, 23 February 2022
Line 12:		Line 12:

	With some help from Sintel, I was able to understand this page. It was not at all clear to me that it was necessary to take the assembled set of eigenvectors and then perform an eigendecomposition to get the projection matrix. Perhaps this is intuitive or obvious for many readers, but for beginners it would definitely help to state that explicitly or show that step. I believe Keenan Pepper said he was going to overhaul this page soon anyway, though. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)		With some help from Sintel, I was able to understand this page. It was not at all clear to me that it was necessary to take the assembled set of eigenvectors and then perform an eigendecomposition to get the projection matrix. Perhaps this is intuitive or obvious for many readers, but for beginners it would definitely help to state that explicitly or show that step. I believe Keenan Pepper said he was going to overhaul this page soon anyway, though. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

			: I'd love to help. I want to reorganize all pages related to generator optimization actually: to point out how they are related and what the easiest way to calculate them is.
			: I'll see what others have to say first though.
			: - [[User:Sintel\|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 00:21, 23 February 2022 (UTC)