User talk:Overthink/Table of 311edo intervals - Revision history

Overthink: /* Comma-sized intervals */ no need to list every one

2026-02-23T00:40:27Z

Comma-sized intervals: no need to list every one

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:40, 23 February 2026
Line 22:		Line 22:

	The comma-sized intervals are likely to have several important interpretations. The problem is, adding all of them will make the table too wide. What should we do about them?--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 02:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)		The comma-sized intervals are likely to have several important interpretations. The problem is, adding all of them will make the table too wide. What should we do about them?--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 02:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

			: Comma-sized intervals are mainly important as the differences between close ratios, thus their sizes can be inferred from the non-comma ratios, so many of them don't really need to be added. Still, it would be wrong for these rows to be completely empty. What should be in these rows then? --[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 00:40, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Overthink: /* Comma-sized intervals */ new section

2026-02-08T02:17:54Z

Comma-sized intervals: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:17, 8 February 2026
Line 18:		Line 18:

	: I consider 11/10 and 14/13 the "canonical" submajor and supraminor seconds, but again I don't think we need these specific names in this table. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)		: I consider 11/10 and 14/13 the "canonical" submajor and supraminor seconds, but again I don't think we need these specific names in this table. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

			== Comma-sized intervals ==

			The comma-sized intervals are likely to have several important interpretations. The problem is, adding all of them will make the table too wide. What should we do about them?--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 02:17, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Overthink: /* Superprime */ new opinion

2026-02-06T17:02:21Z

Superprime: new opinion

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:02, 6 February 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:

	: I'm still going to keep them on this page for my own reference. If this is ever to be added to the main space, then we could simply delete that column and replace it with the less subjective diatonic interval categories. --[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 06:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)		: I'm still going to keep them on this page for my own reference. If this is ever to be added to the main space, then we could simply delete that column and replace it with the less subjective diatonic interval categories. --[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 06:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

			:: I changed my mind; they're honestly kinda redundant, especially with multiple ratio columns. The existing table on [[311edo]] is quite messy, so this probably should replace it eventually, and the original table should be moved to a subpage. --[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 17:02, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

	== 11/10 and 14/13 ==		== 11/10 and 14/13 ==

Overthink: /* Superprime */ reply

2026-02-06T06:07:57Z

Superprime: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:07, 6 February 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:

	I don't think edosteps should be named, especially not for an edo as large as 311. Marking the diatonic interval categories should be enough. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 09:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)		I don't think edosteps should be named, especially not for an edo as large as 311. Marking the diatonic interval categories should be enough. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 09:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

			: I'm still going to keep them on this page for my own reference. If this is ever to be added to the main space, then we could simply delete that column and replace it with the less subjective diatonic interval categories. --[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 06:07, 6 February 2026 (UTC)

	== 11/10 and 14/13 ==		== 11/10 and 14/13 ==

FloraC at 11:53, 26 January 2026

2026-01-26T11:53:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:53, 26 January 2026
Line 11:		Line 11:

	== 11/10 and 14/13 ==		== 11/10 and 14/13 ==
			By virtue of [[2080/2079]] being tempered out, these intervals are reflections of each other over the sqrt(32/27) neutral 2nd, with 11/10 and 14/13 being 5 steps sharp and flat of it respectively. The naming system for 2nds, 3rds, 6ths, and 7ths rely on symmetry between the major and minor variants. How should I name neutral ± 5\311 intervals to avoid heavily prioritizing 11/10 over 14/13, or vice versa? --[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 02:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

	~~By virtue of [[2080/2079]] being tempered out, these intervals are reflections of each other over the sqrt(32/27) neutral 2nd, with~~ 11/10 and 14/13 ~~being 5 steps sharp~~ and ~~flat of it respectively. The naming system for 2nds~~, ~~3rds, 6ths, and 7ths rely on symmetry between the major and minor variants~~. ~~How should I name neutral ± 5\311 intervals to avoid heavily prioritizing 11/10 over 14/13, or vice versa? --~~[[User:~~Overthink~~\|~~Overthink~~]] ([[User talk:~~Overthink~~\|talk]]) 02:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)		: I consider 11/10 and 14/13 the "canonical" submajor and supraminor seconds, but again I don't think we need these specific names in this table. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 11:53, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Overthink: /* 11/10 and 14/13 */ new section

2026-01-26T02:51:49Z

11/10 and 14/13: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:51, 26 January 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:

	I don't think edosteps should be named, especially not for an edo as large as 311. Marking the diatonic interval categories should be enough. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 09:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)		I don't think edosteps should be named, especially not for an edo as large as 311. Marking the diatonic interval categories should be enough. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 09:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

			== 11/10 and 14/13 ==

			By virtue of [[2080/2079]] being tempered out, these intervals are reflections of each other over the sqrt(32/27) neutral 2nd, with 11/10 and 14/13 being 5 steps sharp and flat of it respectively. The naming system for 2nds, 3rds, 6ths, and 7ths rely on symmetry between the major and minor variants. How should I name neutral ± 5\311 intervals to avoid heavily prioritizing 11/10 over 14/13, or vice versa? --[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 02:51, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

FloraC at 09:19, 19 January 2026

2026-01-19T09:19:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:19, 19 January 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Superprime ==		== Superprime ==

	I don't know about you, but I'd label 64/63 as the superprime. As for 1\311, I think we need a better name... --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 23:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)		I don't know about you, but I'd label 64/63 as the superprime. As for 1\311, I think we need a better name... --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 23:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Line 8:		Line 7:

	:: Oh, and 33/32 would be the Ultraprime, and you can derive ultramajor and inframinor from ~33/32 relative to Pythagorean intervals, such as 8192/8019 being the inframinor second and 297/256 being the ultramajor second. There's also the paramajor fourth (11/8), and the paraminor fourth (128/99) and the paramajor fifth (99/64) and the paraminor fifth (16/11). --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 00:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)		:: Oh, and 33/32 would be the Ultraprime, and you can derive ultramajor and inframinor from ~33/32 relative to Pythagorean intervals, such as 8192/8019 being the inframinor second and 297/256 being the ultramajor second. There's also the paramajor fourth (11/8), and the paraminor fourth (128/99) and the paramajor fifth (99/64) and the paraminor fifth (16/11). --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 00:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

			I don't think edosteps should be named, especially not for an edo as large as 311. Marking the diatonic interval categories should be enough. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 09:19, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Aura at 00:33, 19 January 2026

2026-01-19T00:33:28Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:33, 19 January 2026
Line 7:		Line 7:
	: Oh yeah, the keenanisma is quite important, and seperates many important intervals. 64/63 as the superprime makes sense as well, due to 8/7 being a supermajor 2nd and 9/8 being a major 2nd.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 00:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)		: Oh yeah, the keenanisma is quite important, and seperates many important intervals. 64/63 as the superprime makes sense as well, due to 8/7 being a supermajor 2nd and 9/8 being a major 2nd.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 00:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

	: Oh, and 33/32 would be the Ultraprime, and you can derive ultramajor and inframinor from ~33/32 relative to Pythagorean intervals, such as 8192/8019 being the inframinor second and 297/256 being the ultramajor second. There's also the paramajor fourth (11/8), and the paraminor fourth (128/99) and the paramajor fifth (99/64) and the paraminor fifth (16/11). --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 00:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)		:: Oh, and 33/32 would be the Ultraprime, and you can derive ultramajor and inframinor from ~33/32 relative to Pythagorean intervals, such as 8192/8019 being the inframinor second and 297/256 being the ultramajor second. There's also the paramajor fourth (11/8), and the paraminor fourth (128/99) and the paramajor fifth (99/64) and the paraminor fifth (16/11). --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 00:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Aura at 00:32, 19 January 2026

2026-01-19T00:32:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:32, 19 January 2026
Line 6:		Line 6:

	: Oh yeah, the keenanisma is quite important, and seperates many important intervals. 64/63 as the superprime makes sense as well, due to 8/7 being a supermajor 2nd and 9/8 being a major 2nd.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 00:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)		: Oh yeah, the keenanisma is quite important, and seperates many important intervals. 64/63 as the superprime makes sense as well, due to 8/7 being a supermajor 2nd and 9/8 being a major 2nd.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 00:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

			: Oh, and 33/32 would be the Ultraprime, and you can derive ultramajor and inframinor from ~33/32 relative to Pythagorean intervals, such as 8192/8019 being the inframinor second and 297/256 being the ultramajor second. There's also the paramajor fourth (11/8), and the paraminor fourth (128/99) and the paramajor fifth (99/64) and the paraminor fifth (16/11). --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 00:32, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Overthink: reply

2026-01-19T00:00:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:00, 19 January 2026
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Ooh! How about the Keenanisma for 1\311? That's about how big that comma is anyways... --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 23:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)		Ooh! How about the Keenanisma for 1\311? That's about how big that comma is anyways... --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 23:48, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

			: Oh yeah, the keenanisma is quite important, and seperates many important intervals. 64/63 as the superprime makes sense as well, due to 8/7 being a supermajor 2nd and 9/8 being a major 2nd.--[[User:Overthink\|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink\|talk]]) 00:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)