User talk:Xenoindex - Revision history

Xenoindex: thank

2021-10-11T18:16:49Z

thank

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 11 October 2021
Line 28:		Line 28:

	Hi! You have some neat things here, wow! --[[User:Arseniiv\|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv\|talk]]) 17:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)		Hi! You have some neat things here, wow! --[[User:Arseniiv\|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv\|talk]]) 17:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

			: Thank you! come join us on the discord server if you wanna chat about it (linked in the side bar under connect). --[[User:Xenoindex\|Xenoindex]] ([[User talk:Xenoindex\|talk]]) 18:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

	== Table usability ==		== Table usability ==

Arseniiv: just to appreciate

2021-10-11T17:21:39Z

just to appreciate

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:21, 11 October 2021
Line 26:		Line 26:

	::::: Oh, and as for your question as to whether this chain of primes is JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes, given that we're working with EDOs, it follows that the 2-prime is just, though for everything else... well... let's say [[49/32]] is "r", since this interval is made by stacking two instance of [[7/4]] then octave-reducing. There's a difference between say, the direct mapping of your example interval (represented by the right side of the equation), which is the step of the EDO that most closely approximates the just interval in question, and the patent-val-based traditional mapping of that same interval (represented by the left side of the equation), which depends on the mapping generated by stacking multiple instances of the EDO's best approximation of the patent prime interval and octave reducing. The equation tests to see if the results of both of these mappings are identical (indicated by the equation being "true") or not. From there, the only way I can think of to answer that is to say that you need to study the definition of "telicity" itself. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)		::::: Oh, and as for your question as to whether this chain of primes is JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes, given that we're working with EDOs, it follows that the 2-prime is just, though for everything else... well... let's say [[49/32]] is "r", since this interval is made by stacking two instance of [[7/4]] then octave-reducing. There's a difference between say, the direct mapping of your example interval (represented by the right side of the equation), which is the step of the EDO that most closely approximates the just interval in question, and the patent-val-based traditional mapping of that same interval (represented by the left side of the equation), which depends on the mapping generated by stacking multiple instances of the EDO's best approximation of the patent prime interval and octave reducing. The equation tests to see if the results of both of these mappings are identical (indicated by the equation being "true") or not. From there, the only way I can think of to answer that is to say that you need to study the definition of "telicity" itself. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

			Hi! You have some neat things here, wow! --[[User:Arseniiv\|Arseniiv]] ([[User talk:Arseniiv\|talk]]) 17:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

	== Table usability ==		== Table usability ==

Xenwolf: /* Table usability */ re

2021-06-28T13:33:06Z

Table usability: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:33, 28 June 2021
Line 38:		Line 38:

	::: I've shortened the tables by about half, I hope this is adequate. And my code is written in SuperCollider, I suppose I could upload the source but I can't imagine the intersection of SuperCollider users and NEJI users is very large. --[[User:Xenoindex\|Xenoindex]] ([[User talk:Xenoindex\|talk]]) 08:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)		::: I've shortened the tables by about half, I hope this is adequate. And my code is written in SuperCollider, I suppose I could upload the source but I can't imagine the intersection of SuperCollider users and NEJI users is very large. --[[User:Xenoindex\|Xenoindex]] ([[User talk:Xenoindex\|talk]]) 08:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

			:::: In that case I think it would help to show the core algorithm to get the NEJIs that correspond to EDOs. This could also be in [[wikipedia: SuperCollider\| SuperCollider]]: <div><!-- don't break line here --><syntaxhighlight lang="sc">
			// Print "Hello world!"
			"Hello world!".postln;
			</syntaxhighlight><!-- don't break line here --></div> we have syntax highlighting for it (<code>lang="sc"</code>). Maybe someone will be able to translate it into [[Python]], [[JavaScript]], [[Lua]] or whatever. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 13:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Xenoindex at 08:53, 28 June 2021

2021-06-28T08:53:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:53, 28 June 2021
Line 36:		Line 36:

	:: BTW: which code/script are you using? Wouldn't it make sense to add it as well? --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 08:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)		:: BTW: which code/script are you using? Wouldn't it make sense to add it as well? --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 08:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

			::: I've shortened the tables by about half, I hope this is adequate. And my code is written in SuperCollider, I suppose I could upload the source but I can't imagine the intersection of SuperCollider users and NEJI users is very large. --[[User:Xenoindex\|Xenoindex]] ([[User talk:Xenoindex\|talk]]) 08:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Table usability */ PS

2021-06-28T08:13:21Z

Table usability: PS

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:13, 28 June 2021
Line 34:		Line 34:

	:: There is no need to remove tables ''if'' they are helpful. But maybe it would be good to ask (on XA Discord) which specific parts are useful. We already have a lot of tables that try to be complete in an area where completeness is impossible. I see a problem in long static pages, when most users wait for them to load, only to find afterwards that the content is (for the most part) irrelevant to them. Isn't this exactly the occasion for a dynamic web application where users can specify exactly what kind of data they want? --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 08:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)		:: There is no need to remove tables ''if'' they are helpful. But maybe it would be good to ask (on XA Discord) which specific parts are useful. We already have a lot of tables that try to be complete in an area where completeness is impossible. I see a problem in long static pages, when most users wait for them to load, only to find afterwards that the content is (for the most part) irrelevant to them. Isn't this exactly the occasion for a dynamic web application where users can specify exactly what kind of data they want? --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 08:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

			:: BTW: which code/script are you using? Wouldn't it make sense to add it as well? --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 08:13, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Table usability */ re

2021-06-28T08:11:35Z

Table usability: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:11, 28 June 2021
Line 32:		Line 32:

	: Several XA Discord users have expressed to me the immediate usefulness of these tables. They're meant to be accessed on a PC where a user can select which EDO they want a NEJI of from the table of contents then copy and paste different scales to try. But I understand if you deem it necessary to remove them. --[[User:Xenoindex\|Xenoindex]] ([[User talk:Xenoindex\|talk]]) 00:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)		: Several XA Discord users have expressed to me the immediate usefulness of these tables. They're meant to be accessed on a PC where a user can select which EDO they want a NEJI of from the table of contents then copy and paste different scales to try. But I understand if you deem it necessary to remove them. --[[User:Xenoindex\|Xenoindex]] ([[User talk:Xenoindex\|talk]]) 00:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

			:: There is no need to remove tables ''if'' they are helpful. But maybe it would be good to ask (on XA Discord) which specific parts are useful. We already have a lot of tables that try to be complete in an area where completeness is impossible. I see a problem in long static pages, when most users wait for them to load, only to find afterwards that the content is (for the most part) irrelevant to them. Isn't this exactly the occasion for a dynamic web application where users can specify exactly what kind of data they want? --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 08:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Xenoindex at 00:19, 28 June 2021

2021-06-28T00:19:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:19, 28 June 2021
Line 30:		Line 30:

	I doubt that [[NEJI Tables/Average Error]] or [[NEJI Tables/Greatest Error]] will be of high value to readers. Did you ever try to view the information (about 41EDO) on a mobile device? I think it would be better to provide some examples for illustration and some script (or pseudo code) that would enable readers to get the specific information they want. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 22:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)		I doubt that [[NEJI Tables/Average Error]] or [[NEJI Tables/Greatest Error]] will be of high value to readers. Did you ever try to view the information (about 41EDO) on a mobile device? I think it would be better to provide some examples for illustration and some script (or pseudo code) that would enable readers to get the specific information they want. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 22:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

			: Several XA Discord users have expressed to me the immediate usefulness of these tables. They're meant to be accessed on a PC where a user can select which EDO they want a NEJI of from the table of contents then copy and paste different scales to try. But I understand if you deem it necessary to remove them. --[[User:Xenoindex\|Xenoindex]] ([[User talk:Xenoindex\|talk]]) 00:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Xenwolf: /* Table usability */ new section

2021-06-27T22:19:17Z

Table usability: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:19, 27 June 2021
Line 26:		Line 26:

	::::: Oh, and as for your question as to whether this chain of primes is JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes, given that we're working with EDOs, it follows that the 2-prime is just, though for everything else... well... let's say [[49/32]] is "r", since this interval is made by stacking two instance of [[7/4]] then octave-reducing. There's a difference between say, the direct mapping of your example interval (represented by the right side of the equation), which is the step of the EDO that most closely approximates the just interval in question, and the patent-val-based traditional mapping of that same interval (represented by the left side of the equation), which depends on the mapping generated by stacking multiple instances of the EDO's best approximation of the patent prime interval and octave reducing. The equation tests to see if the results of both of these mappings are identical (indicated by the equation being "true") or not. From there, the only way I can think of to answer that is to say that you need to study the definition of "telicity" itself. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)		::::: Oh, and as for your question as to whether this chain of primes is JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes, given that we're working with EDOs, it follows that the 2-prime is just, though for everything else... well... let's say [[49/32]] is "r", since this interval is made by stacking two instance of [[7/4]] then octave-reducing. There's a difference between say, the direct mapping of your example interval (represented by the right side of the equation), which is the step of the EDO that most closely approximates the just interval in question, and the patent-val-based traditional mapping of that same interval (represented by the left side of the equation), which depends on the mapping generated by stacking multiple instances of the EDO's best approximation of the patent prime interval and octave reducing. The equation tests to see if the results of both of these mappings are identical (indicated by the equation being "true") or not. From there, the only way I can think of to answer that is to say that you need to study the definition of "telicity" itself. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

			== Table usability ==

			I doubt that [[NEJI Tables/Average Error]] or [[NEJI Tables/Greatest Error]] will be of high value to readers. Did you ever try to view the information (about 41EDO) on a mobile device? I think it would be better to provide some examples for illustration and some script (or pseudo code) that would enable readers to get the specific information they want. --[[User:Xenwolf\|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf\|talk]]) 22:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Aura at 15:38, 25 January 2021

2021-01-25T15:38:44Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:38, 25 January 2021
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:::: I implemented your equation and it seems to work, but what exactly did you want me to compute? A list of EDOs that have patent vals that line up with a chain of primes? And is this chain of primes JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes? --[[User:Xenoindex\|Xenoindex]] ([[User talk:Xenoindex\|talk]]) 04:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)		:::: I implemented your equation and it seems to work, but what exactly did you want me to compute? A list of EDOs that have patent vals that line up with a chain of primes? And is this chain of primes JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes? --[[User:Xenoindex\|Xenoindex]] ([[User talk:Xenoindex\|talk]]) 04:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::: In effect, I am looking to see a table with rows corresponding to all the EDOs between 1 and 400, with different columns in the table indicating different types of telicity, namely 3-to-2 telicity, 5-to-3 telicity, 5-to-2 telicity, 7-to-5 telicity, 7-to-3 telicity, 7-to-2 telicity, 11-to-7 telicity, 11-to-5 telicity, 11-to-3 telicity, 11-to-2 telicity. An EDO that demonstrates one of these types of telicity has a ✓ in the cell matching the telicity column in question or ✓✓ if it demonstrates multitelicity for that particular type. This is what I'm actually looking for. Later on, we can make diagrams that help us map out the structure of these EDOs based on this table. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)		::::: In effect, I am looking to see a table with rows corresponding to all the EDOs between 1 and 400, with different columns in the table indicating different types of telicity, namely 3-to-2 telicity, 5-to-3 telicity, 5-to-2 telicity, 7-to-5 telicity, 7-to-3 telicity, 7-to-2 telicity, 11-to-7 telicity, 11-to-5 telicity, 11-to-3 telicity and 11-to-2 telicity. An EDO that demonstrates one of these types of telicity has a ✓ in the cell matching the telicity column in question or ✓✓ if it demonstrates multitelicity for that particular type. This is what I'm actually looking for. Later on, we can make diagrams that help us map out the structure of these EDOs based on this table. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::: Oh, and as for your question as to whether this chain of primes is JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes, given that we're working with EDOs, it follows that the 2-prime is just, though for everything else... well... let's say [[49/32]] is "r", since this interval is made by stacking two instance of [[7/4]] then octave-reducing. There's a difference between say, the direct mapping of your example interval (represented by the right side of the equation), which is the step of the EDO that most closely approximates the just interval in question, and the patent-val-based traditional mapping of that same interval (represented by the left side of the equation), which depends on the mapping generated by stacking multiple instances of the EDO's best approximation of the patent prime interval and octave reducing. The equation tests to see if the results of both of these mappings are identical (indicated by the equation being "true") or not. From there, the only way I can think of to answer that is to say that you need to study the definition of "telicity" itself. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)		::::: Oh, and as for your question as to whether this chain of primes is JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes, given that we're working with EDOs, it follows that the 2-prime is just, though for everything else... well... let's say [[49/32]] is "r", since this interval is made by stacking two instance of [[7/4]] then octave-reducing. There's a difference between say, the direct mapping of your example interval (represented by the right side of the equation), which is the step of the EDO that most closely approximates the just interval in question, and the patent-val-based traditional mapping of that same interval (represented by the left side of the equation), which depends on the mapping generated by stacking multiple instances of the EDO's best approximation of the patent prime interval and octave reducing. The equation tests to see if the results of both of these mappings are identical (indicated by the equation being "true") or not. From there, the only way I can think of to answer that is to say that you need to study the definition of "telicity" itself. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Aura at 14:46, 25 January 2021

2021-01-25T14:46:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:46, 25 January 2021
Line 25:		Line 25:
	::::: In effect, I am looking to see a table with rows corresponding to all the EDOs between 1 and 400, with different columns in the table indicating different types of telicity, namely 3-to-2 telicity, 5-to-3 telicity, 5-to-2 telicity, 7-to-5 telicity, 7-to-3 telicity, 7-to-2 telicity, 11-to-7 telicity, 11-to-5 telicity, 11-to-3 telicity, 11-to-2 telicity. An EDO that demonstrates one of these types of telicity has a ✓ in the cell matching the telicity column in question or ✓✓ if it demonstrates multitelicity for that particular type. This is what I'm actually looking for. Later on, we can make diagrams that help us map out the structure of these EDOs based on this table. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)		::::: In effect, I am looking to see a table with rows corresponding to all the EDOs between 1 and 400, with different columns in the table indicating different types of telicity, namely 3-to-2 telicity, 5-to-3 telicity, 5-to-2 telicity, 7-to-5 telicity, 7-to-3 telicity, 7-to-2 telicity, 11-to-7 telicity, 11-to-5 telicity, 11-to-3 telicity, 11-to-2 telicity. An EDO that demonstrates one of these types of telicity has a ✓ in the cell matching the telicity column in question or ✓✓ if it demonstrates multitelicity for that particular type. This is what I'm actually looking for. Later on, we can make diagrams that help us map out the structure of these EDOs based on this table. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::: Oh, and as for your question as to whether this chain of primes is JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes, given that we're working with EDOs, it follows that the 2-prime is just, though for everything else... well... let's say [[49/32]] is "r", since this interval is made by stacking two instance of [[7/4]] then octave-reducing. There's a difference between say, the direct mapping of your example interval (represented by the right side of the equation), which is the step of the EDO that most closely approximates the just interval in question, and the patent-val-based traditional mapping of that same interval (represented by the left side of the equation), which depends on the mapping generated by stacking multiple instances of the EDO's best approximation of the patent prime interval and octave reducing. The equation tests to see if the results of both of these mappings are identical. From there, the only way I can think of to answer that is to say that you need to study the definition of "telicity" itself. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)		::::: Oh, and as for your question as to whether this chain of primes is JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes, given that we're working with EDOs, it follows that the 2-prime is just, though for everything else... well... let's say [[49/32]] is "r", since this interval is made by stacking two instance of [[7/4]] then octave-reducing. There's a difference between say, the direct mapping of your example interval (represented by the right side of the equation), which is the step of the EDO that most closely approximates the just interval in question, and the patent-val-based traditional mapping of that same interval (represented by the left side of the equation), which depends on the mapping generated by stacking multiple instances of the EDO's best approximation of the patent prime interval and octave reducing. The equation tests to see if the results of both of these mappings are identical (indicated by the equation being "true") or not. From there, the only way I can think of to answer that is to say that you need to study the definition of "telicity" itself. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:38, 25 January 2021
Line 23:		Line 23:
	:::: I implemented your equation and it seems to work, but what exactly did you want me to compute? A list of EDOs that have patent vals that line up with a chain of primes? And is this chain of primes JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes? --[[User:Xenoindex\|Xenoindex]] ([[User talk:Xenoindex\|talk]]) 04:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)		:::: I implemented your equation and it seems to work, but what exactly did you want me to compute? A list of EDOs that have patent vals that line up with a chain of primes? And is this chain of primes JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes? --[[User:Xenoindex\|Xenoindex]] ([[User talk:Xenoindex\|talk]]) 04:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::: In effect, I am looking to see a table with rows corresponding to all the EDOs between 1 and 400, with different columns in the table indicating different types of telicity, namely 3-to-2 telicity, 5-to-3 telicity, 5-to-2 telicity, 7-to-5 telicity, 7-to-3 telicity, 7-to-2 telicity, 11-to-7 telicity, 11-to-5 telicity, 11-to-3 telicity, 11-to-2 telicity. An EDO that demonstrates one of these types of telicity has a ✓ in the cell matching the telicity column in question or ✓✓ if it demonstrates multitelicity for that particular type. This is what I'm actually looking for. Later on, we can make diagrams that help us map out the structure of these EDOs based on this table. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)		::::: In effect, I am looking to see a table with rows corresponding to all the EDOs between 1 and 400, with different columns in the table indicating different types of telicity, namely 3-to-2 telicity, 5-to-3 telicity, 5-to-2 telicity, 7-to-5 telicity, 7-to-3 telicity, 7-to-2 telicity, 11-to-7 telicity, 11-to-5 telicity, 11-to-3 telicity and 11-to-2 telicity. An EDO that demonstrates one of these types of telicity has a ✓ in the cell matching the telicity column in question or ✓✓ if it demonstrates multitelicity for that particular type. This is what I'm actually looking for. Later on, we can make diagrams that help us map out the structure of these EDOs based on this table. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

	::::: Oh, and as for your question as to whether this chain of primes is JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes, given that we're working with EDOs, it follows that the 2-prime is just, though for everything else... well... let's say [[49/32]] is "r", since this interval is made by stacking two instance of [[7/4]] then octave-reducing. There's a difference between say, the direct mapping of your example interval (represented by the right side of the equation), which is the step of the EDO that most closely approximates the just interval in question, and the patent-val-based traditional mapping of that same interval (represented by the left side of the equation), which depends on the mapping generated by stacking multiple instances of the EDO's best approximation of the patent prime interval and octave reducing. The equation tests to see if the results of both of these mappings are identical (indicated by the equation being "true") or not. From there, the only way I can think of to answer that is to say that you need to study the definition of "telicity" itself. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)		::::: Oh, and as for your question as to whether this chain of primes is JI primes or each respective EDO's patent val primes, given that we're working with EDOs, it follows that the 2-prime is just, though for everything else... well... let's say [[49/32]] is "r", since this interval is made by stacking two instance of [[7/4]] then octave-reducing. There's a difference between say, the direct mapping of your example interval (represented by the right side of the equation), which is the step of the EDO that most closely approximates the just interval in question, and the patent-val-based traditional mapping of that same interval (represented by the left side of the equation), which depends on the mapping generated by stacking multiple instances of the EDO's best approximation of the patent prime interval and octave reducing. The equation tests to see if the results of both of these mappings are identical (indicated by the equation being "true") or not. From there, the only way I can think of to answer that is to say that you need to study the definition of "telicity" itself. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 14:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)