Talk:Wilson norm - Revision history

Overthink: /* This metric is flawed */ change of opinion

2025-12-27T07:12:55Z

This metric is flawed: change of opinion

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:12, 27 December 2025
Line 42:		Line 42:

	: —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 09:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)		: —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 09:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

			: Now that I think of it, maybe it isn't so much of a flaw. Greater weight on prime 2 means encouraging voicings that contain less factors of 2 for chords. In any case, it's only a 5% difference or so, and at least prime 5 is weighted more than prime 3. Also, the 13-limit is a relatively low limit, and 1.75x as much weight as prime 2 relative to tenney makes more sense than 3.24x. --[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 07:12, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

FloraC at 11:59, 1 November 2025

2025-11-01T11:59:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:59, 1 November 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:

	I think that information is not relevant there, but should be included here instead. But I cannot edit this page as it has been locked to admins only. (Edit: I forgot to sign this the first time around, in April 2022) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)		I think that information is not relevant there, but should be included here instead. But I cannot edit this page as it has been locked to admins only. (Edit: I forgot to sign this the first time around, in April 2022) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

			: Resolved. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

	== errors in "L1 Norm on Monzos" formula ==		== errors in "L1 Norm on Monzos" formula ==
Line 11:		Line 13:

	I'm just posting here as a reminder to admins about these two requests, in case they all missed them the first time. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)		I'm just posting here as a reminder to admins about these two requests, in case they all missed them the first time. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

			: Resolved. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

	== This metric is flawed ==		== This metric is flawed ==

FloraC: Re

2025-11-01T09:21:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:21, 1 November 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Extract fact from main Height article to here ==		== Extract fact from main Height article to here ==

	Presently the information about the historical origin of this terminology is only found on the page for [[Height]] in general:		Presently the information about the historical origin of this terminology is only found on the page for [[Height]] in general:

Line 9:		Line 8:

	== errors in "L1 Norm on Monzos" formula ==		== errors in "L1 Norm on Monzos" formula ==

	It looks like we're missing a multiplication 2 in there and have an extra multiplication by 3. (Edit: I forgot to sign this the first time around, in April 2022) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)		It looks like we're missing a multiplication 2 in there and have an extra multiplication by 3. (Edit: I forgot to sign this the first time around, in April 2022) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Line 15:		Line 13:

	== This metric is flawed ==		== This metric is flawed ==

	While the overall idea of prioritizing lower limits makes sense, there's a bit of a flaw. For example, 2048/1 has a Wilson norm of 22, while 2187/1 has a Wilson norm of 21. If primes are weighted by ''1/log<sub>2</sub>(p)'', then this views factors of 3 as less complex than factors of 2, and prime 5 is barely more complex than 2. I propose a modified version, where if a/b is a ratio, each prime factor ''q'' of ''ab'' increases the norm of ''a/b'' by ''q-1'', rather than ''q''. This brings much more weight to prime 2, and lower limits in general. Here is a list of {{nowrap\|(increase in Wilson norm)/(increase in Tenney norm)}} and {{nowrap\|(increase in Wilson norm)/(increase in my norm)}} per factor of each prime in ''ab'' for a ratio ''a/b''.		While the overall idea of prioritizing lower limits makes sense, there's a bit of a flaw. For example, 2048/1 has a Wilson norm of 22, while 2187/1 has a Wilson norm of 21. If primes are weighted by ''1/log<sub>2</sub>(p)'', then this views factors of 3 as less complex than factors of 2, and prime 5 is barely more complex than 2. I propose a modified version, where if a/b is a ratio, each prime factor ''q'' of ''ab'' increases the norm of ''a/b'' by ''q-1'', rather than ''q''. This brings much more weight to prime 2, and lower limits in general. Here is a list of {{nowrap\|(increase in Wilson norm)/(increase in Tenney norm)}} and {{nowrap\|(increase in Wilson norm)/(increase in my norm)}} per factor of each prime in ''ab'' for a ratio ''a/b''.

Line 35:		Line 32:

	As you can see, the wilson norm sees prime 13 as over half as important as 2, while mine sees 13 as less than a third as important as 2. My norm sees prime 3 as somewhat less important than 2, and prime 5 is seen as considerably more complex.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 06:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)		As you can see, the wilson norm sees prime 13 as over half as important as 2, while mine sees 13 as less than a third as important as 2. My norm sees prime 3 as somewhat less important than 2, and prime 5 is seen as considerably more complex.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 06:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

			: You're correct that Wilson weights prime 3 less than Tenney relative to prime 2. Whether it's a flaw is debatable.

			: I have a section to add to this article where I'll address the extrapolation on Tenney and Wilson and note that fact along the way.

			: —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 09:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Overthink: /* This metric is flawed */ new section

2025-11-01T06:10:59Z

This metric is flawed: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:10, 1 November 2025
Line 13:		Line 13:

	I'm just posting here as a reminder to admins about these two requests, in case they all missed them the first time. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)		I'm just posting here as a reminder to admins about these two requests, in case they all missed them the first time. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

			== This metric is flawed ==

			While the overall idea of prioritizing lower limits makes sense, there's a bit of a flaw. For example, 2048/1 has a Wilson norm of 22, while 2187/1 has a Wilson norm of 21. If primes are weighted by ''1/log<sub>2</sub>(p)'', then this views factors of 3 as less complex than factors of 2, and prime 5 is barely more complex than 2. I propose a modified version, where if a/b is a ratio, each prime factor ''q'' of ''ab'' increases the norm of ''a/b'' by ''q-1'', rather than ''q''. This brings much more weight to prime 2, and lower limits in general. Here is a list of {{nowrap\|(increase in Wilson norm)/(increase in Tenney norm)}} and {{nowrap\|(increase in Wilson norm)/(increase in my norm)}} per factor of each prime in ''ab'' for a ratio ''a/b''.

			2: Wilson/Tenney: 2.000; Mine/Tenney: 1.000

			3: W/T: 1.893; M/T: 1.262

			5: W/T: 2.153; M/T: 1.723

			7: W/T: 2.493; M/T: 2.137

			11: W/T: 3.180; M/T: 2.891

			13: W/T: 3.513; M/T: 3.243

			17: W/T: 4.159; M/T: 3.914

			19: W/T: 4.473; M/T: 4.237

			As you can see, the wilson norm sees prime 13 as over half as important as 2, while mine sees 13 as less than a third as important as 2. My norm sees prime 3 as somewhat less important than 2, and prime 5 is seen as considerably more complex.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 06:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

FloraC: FloraC moved page Talk:Wilson height to Talk:Wilson norm: Follow Tenney norm

2025-09-03T02:24:23Z

FloraC moved page Talk:Wilson height to Talk:Wilson norm: Follow Tenney norm

← Older revision	Revision as of 02:24, 3 September 2025
(No difference)

Cmloegcmluin: reminder to admins w/ editing rights

2023-05-06T22:58:29Z

reminder to admins w/ editing rights

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:58, 6 May 2023
Line 11:		Line 11:

	It looks like we're missing a multiplication 2 in there and have an extra multiplication by 3. (Edit: I forgot to sign this the first time around, in April 2022) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)		It looks like we're missing a multiplication 2 in there and have an extra multiplication by 3. (Edit: I forgot to sign this the first time around, in April 2022) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

			I'm just posting here as a reminder to admins about these two requests, in case they all missed them the first time. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 22:58, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: retroactively sign

2022-12-11T19:22:35Z

retroactively sign

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:22, 11 December 2022
Line 6:		Line 6:
	This is called "Wilson's Complexity" in [[John Chalmers]]'s "Division of the Tetrachord."<ref>See http://lumma.org/tuning/chalmers/DivisionsOfTheTetrachord.pdf, page 55</ref></nowiki>		This is called "Wilson's Complexity" in [[John Chalmers]]'s "Division of the Tetrachord."<ref>See http://lumma.org/tuning/chalmers/DivisionsOfTheTetrachord.pdf, page 55</ref></nowiki>

	I think that information is not relevant there, but should be included here instead. But I cannot edit this page as it has been locked to admins only.		I think that information is not relevant there, but should be included here instead. But I cannot edit this page as it has been locked to admins only. (Edit: I forgot to sign this the first time around, in April 2022) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

	== errors in "L1 Norm on Monzos" formula ==		== errors in "L1 Norm on Monzos" formula ==

	It looks like we're missing a multiplication 2 in there and have an extra multiplication by 3.		It looks like we're missing a multiplication 2 in there and have an extra multiplication by 3. (Edit: I forgot to sign this the first time around, in April 2022) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin\|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin\|talk]]) 19:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Cmloegcmluin: /* errors in "L1 Norm on Monzos" formula */ new section

2022-04-11T16:49:48Z

errors in "L1 Norm on Monzos" formula: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:49, 11 April 2022
Line 7:		Line 7:

	I think that information is not relevant there, but should be included here instead. But I cannot edit this page as it has been locked to admins only.		I think that information is not relevant there, but should be included here instead. But I cannot edit this page as it has been locked to admins only.

			== errors in "L1 Norm on Monzos" formula ==

			It looks like we're missing a multiplication 2 in there and have an extra multiplication by 3.

Cmloegcmluin: Created page with "== Extract fact from main Height article to here == Presently the information about the historical origin of this terminology is only found on the page for Height in gene..."

2022-04-06T21:20:07Z

Created page with "== Extract fact from main Height article to here == Presently the information about the historical origin of this terminology is only found on the page for Height in gene..."

New page

== Extract fact from main Height article to here ==

Presently the information about the historical origin of this terminology is only found on the page for [[Height]] in general:

<nowiki>
This is called "Wilson's Complexity" in [[John Chalmers]]'s "Division of the Tetrachord."<ref>See http://lumma.org/tuning/chalmers/DivisionsOfTheTetrachord.pdf, page 55</ref></nowiki>

I think that information is not relevant there, but should be included here instead. But I cannot edit this page as it has been locked to admins only.