Talk:Tuning ranges of regular temperaments - Revision history

Cmloegcmluin: /* Open or closed? */

2022-01-21T20:10:33Z

Open or closed?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:10, 21 January 2022
Line 17:		Line 17:

	:: Honestly it doesn't matter, I'd like to make it consistent though. (My vote is for open) - [[User:Sintel\|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 17:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)		:: Honestly it doesn't matter, I'd like to make it consistent though. (My vote is for open) - [[User:Sintel\|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 17:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

			::: Dave didn't explicitly give reasons. But from the context, I believe his point is that to truly be a meantone tuning, there must be ''some'' compromise between the tunings of the just perfect fifth and major third, and if no compromise at all is made, then the tuning has no business being called a meantone. And that this sentiment might then be extended to other temperaments (with less explicitly instructive names than "meantone") regarding whichever JI intervals they're defined as making compromises between. I think this makes enough sense, myself.

			::: It seems that no one is aware of the original authors specifying one way or another, though? So if we don't know what is "actually" the case about these tuning ranges' openness, for now, the best possibility might be to recognize that it's an unknown on the main page, and say that for now you may want to be specific as to whether you're using diamond tuning ranges in an open or closed sense, on a case by case basis. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 20:10, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Sintel at 17:55, 21 January 2022

2022-01-21T17:55:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:55, 21 January 2022
Line 15:		Line 15:

	: I'd like to hear Dave's reasons. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)		: I'd like to hear Dave's reasons. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

			:: Honestly it doesn't matter, I'd like to make it consistent though. (My vote is for open) - [[User:Sintel\|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel\|talk]]) 17:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

FloraC: /* Open or closed? */ re

2022-01-21T11:13:50Z

Open or closed?: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:13, 21 January 2022
Line 13:		Line 13:

	In an email correspondence, Dave Keenan suggested that the diamond tuning ranges should be considered ''open'' ranges, that is, that their extrema should be excluded. For example — per the examples given on the page — for 5-limit meantone, 4/3 and (12/5)^(1/3) would not themselves be diamond tradeoff generators, and 2/5 and 3/7 would not themselves be diamond monotone generators. I think this seems reasonable, but I wouldn't add it to the page unless I was sure that historically the ranges hadn't been defined otherwise. Does anyone happen to know whether they've been explicitly stated to be open or closed ranges? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 04:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)		In an email correspondence, Dave Keenan suggested that the diamond tuning ranges should be considered ''open'' ranges, that is, that their extrema should be excluded. For example — per the examples given on the page — for 5-limit meantone, 4/3 and (12/5)^(1/3) would not themselves be diamond tradeoff generators, and 2/5 and 3/7 would not themselves be diamond monotone generators. I think this seems reasonable, but I wouldn't add it to the page unless I was sure that historically the ranges hadn't been defined otherwise. Does anyone happen to know whether they've been explicitly stated to be open or closed ranges? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 04:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

			: I'd like to hear Dave's reasons. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: /* Open or closed? */ new section

2022-01-21T04:15:08Z

Open or closed?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:15, 21 January 2022
Line 9:		Line 9:

	: Good catch. Actually, it was missing a possessive apostrophe. Try it now? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 23:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)		: Good catch. Actually, it was missing a possessive apostrophe. Try it now? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 23:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

			== Open or closed? ==

			In an email correspondence, Dave Keenan suggested that the diamond tuning ranges should be considered ''open'' ranges, that is, that their extrema should be excluded. For example — per the examples given on the page — for 5-limit meantone, 4/3 and (12/5)^(1/3) would not themselves be diamond tradeoff generators, and 2/5 and 3/7 would not themselves be diamond monotone generators. I think this seems reasonable, but I wouldn't add it to the page unless I was sure that historically the ranges hadn't been defined otherwise. Does anyone happen to know whether they've been explicitly stated to be open or closed ranges? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 04:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: /* Missing word? */

2021-05-27T23:53:29Z

Missing word?

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:53, 27 May 2021
Line 7:		Line 7:

	In section [[Tuning ranges of regular temperaments #Other tuning ranges\|#Other tuning ranges]], I read at the end of the 3rd sentence: ''[...] participants can correctly identify that tunings intervals in the way prescribed by the mapping.'' I think that there is a word missing between ''tunings'' and ''intervals''. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 19:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)		In section [[Tuning ranges of regular temperaments #Other tuning ranges\|#Other tuning ranges]], I read at the end of the 3rd sentence: ''[...] participants can correctly identify that tunings intervals in the way prescribed by the mapping.'' I think that there is a word missing between ''tunings'' and ''intervals''. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 19:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

			: Good catch. Actually, it was missing a possessive apostrophe. Try it now? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 23:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Missing word? */ new section

2021-05-27T19:51:23Z

Missing word?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:51, 27 May 2021
Line 3:		Line 3:

	: Is "bump" acceptable here? :) Haha, if Inthar doesn't understand this either, then I am really concerned. Surely someone can explain? Maybe there's something on the old tuning lists... nope, I don't find anything. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)		: Is "bump" acceptable here? :) Haha, if Inthar doesn't understand this either, then I am really concerned. Surely someone can explain? Maybe there's something on the old tuning lists... nope, I don't find anything. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

			== Missing word? ==

			In section [[Tuning ranges of regular temperaments #Other tuning ranges\|#Other tuning ranges]], I read at the end of the 3rd sentence: ''[...] participants can correctly identify that tunings intervals in the way prescribed by the mapping.'' I think that there is a word missing between ''tunings'' and ''intervals''. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 19:51, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin at 17:59, 25 May 2021

2021-05-25T17:59:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:59, 25 May 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Def of nice range ==		== Def of nice range ==
	I don't understand this: "we may define a tuning range by finding the convex hull in tuning space of the tunings with one eigenmonzo 2 (pure octaves tunings) and the rest [of what?] a set of r - 1 members [why doesn't it matter which r-1 members we choose?] of the p-odd limit tonality diamond, when this tuning [how is "this" tuning chosen?] is defined." Actual math notation and formatting procedures as lists would help, if nothing else. [[User:IlL\|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL\|talk]]) 12:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)		I don't understand this: "we may define a tuning range by finding the convex hull in tuning space of the tunings with one eigenmonzo 2 (pure octaves tunings) and the rest [of what?] a set of r - 1 members [why doesn't it matter which r-1 members we choose?] of the p-odd limit tonality diamond, when this tuning [how is "this" tuning chosen?] is defined." Actual math notation and formatting procedures as lists would help, if nothing else. [[User:IlL\|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL\|talk]]) 12:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

			: Is "bump" acceptable here? :) Haha, if Inthar doesn't understand this either, then I am really concerned. Surely someone can explain? Maybe there's something on the old tuning lists... nope, I don't find anything. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 17:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Inthar: IlL moved page Talk:Tuning Ranges of Regular Temperaments to Talk:Tuning ranges of regular temperaments: Page title case

2021-02-01T14:56:49Z

IlL moved page Talk:Tuning Ranges of Regular Temperaments to Talk:Tuning ranges of regular temperaments: Page title case

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:56, 1 February 2021
(No difference)

Inthar: /* Def of nice range */

2021-01-28T12:45:28Z

Def of nice range

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:45, 28 January 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Def of nice range ==		== Def of nice range ==
	I don't understand this: "we may define a tuning range by finding the convex hull in tuning space of the tunings with one eigenmonzo 2 (pure octaves tunings) and the rest [of what?] a set of r - 1 members [why doesn't it matter which r-1 members we choose?] of the p-odd limit tonality diamond, when this tuning [how is "this" tuning chosen?] is defined." ~~The clause is very poorly structured indeed.~~ Actual math notation and formatting procedures as lists would help, if nothing else. [[User:IlL\|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL\|talk]]) 12:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)		I don't understand this: "we may define a tuning range by finding the convex hull in tuning space of the tunings with one eigenmonzo 2 (pure octaves tunings) and the rest [of what?] a set of r - 1 members [why doesn't it matter which r-1 members we choose?] of the p-odd limit tonality diamond, when this tuning [how is "this" tuning chosen?] is defined." Actual math notation and formatting procedures as lists would help, if nothing else. [[User:IlL\|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL\|talk]]) 12:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Inthar at 12:45, 28 January 2021

2021-01-28T12:45:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:45, 28 January 2021
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Def of nice range ==		== Def of nice range ==
	I don't understand this: "we may define a tuning range by finding the convex hull in tuning space of the tunings with one eigenmonzo 2 (pure octaves tunings) and the rest [of what?] a set of r - 1 members [why doesn't it matter which r-1 members we choose?] of the p-odd limit tonality diamond, when this tuning [how is "this" tuning chosen?] is defined." The clause is very poorly structured indeed. [[User:IlL\|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL\|talk]]) 12:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)		I don't understand this: "we may define a tuning range by finding the convex hull in tuning space of the tunings with one eigenmonzo 2 (pure octaves tunings) and the rest [of what?] a set of r - 1 members [why doesn't it matter which r-1 members we choose?] of the p-odd limit tonality diamond, when this tuning [how is "this" tuning chosen?] is defined." The clause is very poorly structured indeed. Actual math notation and formatting procedures as lists would help, if nothing else. [[User:IlL\|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL\|talk]]) 12:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)