User talk:FloraC - Revision history

MisterShafXen: /* About schismina */

2026-05-06T17:28:23Z

About schismina

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:28, 6 May 2026
Line 82:		Line 82:

	: —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 17:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)		: —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 17:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

			== Thanks ==
			Hello Flora, how are you today? I see you corrected some mistakes I unwittingly made when editing MOS pages, for example, when I called 2L 17s a MOS of Pycnic temperament and you took it out, noting that 2L 17s is actually tritonic temperament. So, I just wanted to say thank you, and I will double-check my edits in the future. [[User:MisterShafXen\|MisterShafXen]] ([[User talk:MisterShafXen\|talk]]) 17:28, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

FloraC: Re

2026-02-22T17:33:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 22 February 2026
Line 72:		Line 72:
	== About schismina ==		== About schismina ==
	What's the deal with the schisminic temp? It is 2.3.5.7.13, there's no 11. Also, I would deem the differences I outlined are notable, because they show how many ''simple'' ratios of 35 have tiny differences with tridecimal equivalents and viceversa. Specially 8505/8192, whose pressence in Sagittal pretty much assumes that the schismina is either tempered out or fudged. It's that important of a schisma, we have to sell it as such! --[[User:Eufalesio\|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio\|talk]]) 17:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)		What's the deal with the schisminic temp? It is 2.3.5.7.13, there's no 11. Also, I would deem the differences I outlined are notable, because they show how many ''simple'' ratios of 35 have tiny differences with tridecimal equivalents and viceversa. Specially 8505/8192, whose pressence in Sagittal pretty much assumes that the schismina is either tempered out or fudged. It's that important of a schisma, we have to sell it as such! --[[User:Eufalesio\|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio\|talk]]) 17:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

			: > What's the deal with the schisminic temp? It is 2.3.5.7.13, there's no 11.

			: That's why ''schismina'' isn't a great name for the comma; there's no room to distinguish the minimal-prime-subgroup temp and the full-prime-limit temp according to our rules. I've proposed something else in ''Talk: 4096/4095''.

			: > I would deem the differences I outlined are notable.

			: I think there's a problem in how you present your ideas. If all you wanna discuss is the merge of intervals of 13 with intervals of 35, add that instead. A pair of ratios may serve as an example, but the entire point is in the context. The ratios alone which comprise three- or even four-digit ones aren't notable cuz no one uses them in music.

			: —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 17:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Eufalesio at 17:05, 22 February 2026

2026-02-22T17:05:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:05, 22 February 2026
Line 69:		Line 69:

	: Sure. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 13:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)		: Sure. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 13:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

			== About schismina ==
			What's the deal with the schisminic temp? It is 2.3.5.7.13, there's no 11. Also, I would deem the differences I outlined are notable, because they show how many ''simple'' ratios of 35 have tiny differences with tridecimal equivalents and viceversa. Specially 8505/8192, whose pressence in Sagittal pretty much assumes that the schismina is either tempered out or fudged. It's that important of a schisma, we have to sell it as such! --[[User:Eufalesio\|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio\|talk]]) 17:05, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

FloraC at 13:39, 14 February 2026

2026-02-14T13:39:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:39, 14 February 2026
Line 67:		Line 67:

	--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 23:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)		--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 23:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

			: Sure. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 13:39, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Overthink: /* Tetracot */ new section

2026-02-13T23:45:02Z

Tetracot: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:45, 13 February 2026
Line 45:		Line 45:

	: Fixed. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 20:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)		: Fixed. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 20:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

			== Tetracot ==

			On the page [[Tetracot extensions]], you suggested splitting it into four pages: [[Monkey]], [[Bunya]], [[Modus]], and [[Wollemia]]. Tetracot splits the [[2187/2048\|apotome]] into four comma steps. It maps 5/4 to the vM3, 11/8 to the sA4, and 13/8 to the n6. The main tetracot edos are [[27edo]] (27e val for prime 11), [[34edo]], and [[41edo]]. These extensions differ is the mapping of prime 7:

			Monkey (34 & 41): 7/4 is vm7

			Bunya (34d & 41): 7/4 is sA6

			Modus (27e & 34d): 7/4 is m7

			Wollemia (27e & 34): 7/4 is ^A6

			I've noticed that in 27edo the pythagorean thirds are quite clearly supermajor/subminor, and the 5-limit thirds are quite far from each other, with [[5/4]] being the same 400{{c}} major third as in 12edo, and [[6/5]] being slightly flat at 311.{{Overline\|1}}{{c}}. 34edo makes 5/4 and 6/5 both about equally sharp, and the pythagorean thirds are mapped as in 17edo. 41edo maps the pythagorean thirds close to just, but the 5-limit thirds are slightly closer to neutral as a result. In any case, intervals of 11 and 13 are mapped to neutral intervals. The way I tend to think of tetracot is as a tertian structure (like [[keemic]]).

			Monkey and modus map 7/4 to a 7th (they are supported by the 7edo patent val). The tertian structures of 27edo and 41edo are quite clearly different, while 34edo is somewhat similar to both (though IMO closer to 27edo as 34d is better than patent 34). Here 34d&27 is modus, while 34&41 is monkey. They are quite clearly different, as modus sets the pythagorean thirds to septimal ones while pental thirds are halfway between the septimal thirds and neutral ones. Monkey, on the other hand, distinguishes the pythagorean thirds from pental and septimal ones, and sets them equidistant from pental and septimal thirds.

			Bunya and wollemia, on the other hand, map 7/4 to a 6th (corresponding to the 7d val). Bunya (34d&41) maps 7/4 to a sA6, so that 28/27 is equated with 33/32 as an sA1, as in [[parapyth]]. This sets the pythagorean major third to [[14/11]], and 9/7 to an sd4 instead. Bunya also tempers out [[225/224]], so that 7/4 is equated with the [[225/128]] augmented 6th, which in tetracot is a vvA6 = sA6. Wollemia (27e & 34), on the other hand, is quite strange. It tunes the fifth so that the pythagorean intervals are close to septimal intervals, but doesn't actually map them to septimal intervals. Instead, 28/27 is mapped to a ^1, so 9/7 is a v4, and 7/6 is a ^A2. Optimal tunings of wollemia are close to optimal tunings of modus, but doesn't temper out [[64/63]], instead equating septimal supermajor/subminor intervals to tridecimal ultramajor/inframinor intervals via tempering of [[91/90]]. In wollemia [[14/11]] is also mapped to the same interval as [[5/4]], and [[11/8]] the same interval as [[7/5]]. I'm not too sure of the significance of this yet, besides that both the 27e and 34 vals contain these equivalences.

			In any case, I suggest you add a 7et detemperament section to the [[Tetracot]] article.

			--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 23:45, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

FloraC: Re

2026-01-29T20:23:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:23, 29 January 2026
Line 42:		Line 42:

	== EDO impressions ==		== EDO impressions ==
			In your EDO impressions for 36edo you mentioned adding “third tones”, even though the correct term here would be “sixth tones”. Can you fix that? <span style="display: inline-block;transform: rotate(15deg);background:#E1EBF2;font-family:Verdana;text-shadow: 3px 3px 4px #0008;">[[User:Hotcrystal0\|hotcrysta]][[User talk: Hotcrystal0\|l0]]</span> 18:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

	~~In your EDO impressions for 36edo you mentioned adding “third tones”, even though the correct term here would be “sixth tones”~~. ~~Can you fix that? <span style="display: inline-block;transform: rotate(15deg);background:#E1EBF2;font-family:Verdana;text-shadow: 3px 3px 4px #0008;">~~[[User:~~Hotcrystal0~~\|~~hotcrysta~~]][[User talk: ~~Hotcrystal0~~\|l0]]~~</span> 18~~:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)		: Fixed. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 20:23, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hotcrystal0: /* EDO impressions */ new section

2026-01-29T18:16:39Z

EDO impressions: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 29 January 2026
Line 40:		Line 40:
	: I do take issue with Pepper ambiguity specifically when the intervals involve inconsistency, but as the information have been there for a long time I don't feel like removing them. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)		: I do take issue with Pepper ambiguity specifically when the intervals involve inconsistency, but as the information have been there for a long time I don't feel like removing them. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
	: <small>P.S. pls remember to sign your comment with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. </small>		: <small>P.S. pls remember to sign your comment with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. </small>

			== EDO impressions ==

			In your EDO impressions for 36edo you mentioned adding “third tones”, even though the correct term here would be “sixth tones”. Can you fix that? <span style="display: inline-block;transform: rotate(15deg);background:#E1EBF2;font-family:Verdana;text-shadow: 3px 3px 4px #0008;">[[User:Hotcrystal0\|hotcrysta]][[User talk: Hotcrystal0\|l0]]</span> 18:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

FloraC: Re

2026-01-29T11:46:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:46, 29 January 2026
Line 36:		Line 36:

	== Odd prime sum limit notability ==		== Odd prime sum limit notability ==
			I noticed that you removed the mentions of odd prime sum limit records I made from a couple of edo pages. Is it too arbitrary of a metric for prime approximation to be mentioned on these pages? If so, how is it different in this regard from Pepper ambiguity (still mentioned on the 270edo page)?

	I ~~noticed that you removed~~ the ~~mentions of odd prime sum limit records~~ I ~~made from a couple of edo pages~~. ~~Is it too arbitrary of a metric for prime approximation to be mentioned on these pages? If so~~, ~~how is it different in this regard from Pepper ambiguity~~ (~~still mentioned on the 270edo page~~)?		: I do take issue with Pepper ambiguity specifically when the intervals involve inconsistency, but as the information have been there for a long time I don't feel like removing them. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)
			: <small>P.S. pls remember to sign your comment with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. </small>

Tristanbay: /* Odd prime sum limit notability */ new section

2026-01-29T02:00:43Z

Odd prime sum limit notability: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:00, 29 January 2026
Line 34:		Line 34:

	: As you can see in ''Small comma'' page, the comma was named the ''valerisma'', and no articles exist for it. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)		: As you can see in ''Small comma'' page, the comma was named the ''valerisma'', and no articles exist for it. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 16:28, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

			== Odd prime sum limit notability ==

			I noticed that you removed the mentions of odd prime sum limit records I made from a couple of edo pages. Is it too arbitrary of a metric for prime approximation to be mentioned on these pages? If so, how is it different in this regard from Pepper ambiguity (still mentioned on the 270edo page)?

FloraC: Re

2026-01-21T11:49:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:49, 21 January 2026
Line 27:		Line 27:

	:: Hm... Maybe placing the apostrophe ''after'' the number is more readable. This way 1–6/5–3/2 will become "0–3'–1", and the number coming first is more readable, plus it will be read as "3 prime" which fits better with math notation.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 21:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)		:: Hm... Maybe placing the apostrophe ''after'' the number is more readable. This way 1–6/5–3/2 will become "0–3'–1", and the number coming first is more readable, plus it will be read as "3 prime" which fits better with math notation.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 21:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

			::: Good point. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

	== {{monzo\| -37 0 0 0 0 10}} ==		== {{monzo\| -37 0 0 0 0 10}} ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:49, 21 January 2026
Line 27:		Line 27:

	:: Hm... Maybe placing the apostrophe ''after'' the number is more readable. This way 1–6/5–3/2 will become "0–3'–1", and the number coming first is more readable, plus it will be read as "3 prime" which fits better with math notation.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 21:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)		:: Hm... Maybe placing the apostrophe ''after'' the number is more readable. This way 1–6/5–3/2 will become "0–3'–1", and the number coming first is more readable, plus it will be read as "3 prime" which fits better with math notation.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 21:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

			::: Good point. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:49, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

	== {{monzo\| -37 0 0 0 0 10}} ==		== {{monzo\| -37 0 0 0 0 10}} ==