Talk:Optimal ET sequence: Difference between revisions

(6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 29:

:::::: Alright, so now it's back to me. I agree with Dave and Fredg999 that we should change "Optimal GPV sequence" to "Optimal ET sequence". And I'll go even another step further: I think that "optimal" here can and should also be made to further capture a third idea, the one Dave pointed out: that these are ETs which support the given temperament. I think there's simply too much detail to this concept to capture it all explicitly in the name, and "optimal" does a suitable job at encapsulating all three of these ideas.

:::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::: Moved. To be clear, I was thinking about rigorously defining it and back then GPV was indeed used to make the sequence, before the new proposal arrived that the GPV constraint may be assimilated into "optimal". [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

:::: I agree that "supporting" should be explicitly mentioned in any description of the requirements of the ETs in an "optimal ET sequence". [[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 20:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::: Yes, Flora, I should have mentioned, that even back when it was simply called "val list", GPVs / uniform maps were used to make the sequence.

:::::: Dave, I looked into it, and it seems that "supporting" was already explicitly on the page, but Flora has just now improved things by making it link to the article I wrote about the concept.

:::::: Okay. So the page has been moved. Thanks Flora. And thanks Dave and Fredg999 for helping us sort this all out. But work remains. We still have many occurrences of "Optimal GPV sequence" across the wiki. I offer to do the work myself to change every occurrence to "Optimal ET sequence" across the wiki. I will do this over the weekend unless I hear back otherwise from anyone.

:::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 17:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::: Okay, I updated all occurrences. As I went, I standardized them all to use the template, to catch many occurrences of even older names used for this information, and also so that if we ever need to make changes again, that time we can do it in one place. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 20:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

== Sorted by complexity? ==

I think that almost always (perhaps simply always) this error-decreasing constraint results in a list whose member ETs are sorted by increasing complexity. I would be interested to see if this is true, and if so, note it in the article. Does anyone have an idea how to prove this one way or the other? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

: The set of all GPVs can be sorted by complexity and is used here so that a "bigger ET" comes later than a "smaller ET". There's nothing to prove. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

== Can ETs with non-uniform maps ever be optimal? ==

On another discussion thread on this page, the question arose as to whether an ET with a non-uniform map could ever make it into an optimal ET sequence. I wanted to set this question aside on its own topic for further discussion. I agree with Fredg999 and Dave that it is an interesting question, but at this time, I don't have any particular ideas on how to answer it. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

: Hard to answer. Guess it could happen in the higher ranks. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 :::::: Alright, so now it's back to me. I agree with Dave and Fredg999 that we should change "Optimal GPV sequence" to "Optimal ET sequence". And I'll go even another step further: I think that "optimal" here can and should also be made to further capture a third idea, the one Dave pointed out: that these are ETs which support the given temperament. I think there's simply too much detail to this concept to capture it all explicitly in the name, and "optimal" does a suitable job at encapsulating all three of these ideas.
 :::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
+::::::: Moved. To be clear, I was thinking about rigorously defining it and back then GPV was indeed used to make the sequence, before the new proposal arrived that the GPV constraint may be assimilated into "optimal". [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::: I agree that "supporting" should be explicitly mentioned in any description of the requirements of the ETs in an "optimal ET sequence". [[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 20:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::::: Yes, Flora, I should have mentioned, that even back when it was simply called "val list", GPVs / uniform maps were used to make the sequence.
+:::::: Dave, I looked into it, and it seems that "supporting" was already explicitly on the page, but Flora has just now improved things by making it link to the article I wrote about the concept.
+:::::: Okay. So the page has been moved. Thanks Flora. And thanks Dave and Fredg999 for helping us sort this all out. But work remains. We still have many occurrences of "Optimal GPV sequence" across the wiki. I offer to do the work myself to change every occurrence to "Optimal ET sequence" across the wiki. I will do this over the weekend unless I hear back otherwise from anyone.
+:::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 17:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::::: Okay, I updated all occurrences. As I went, I standardized them all to use the template, to catch many occurrences of even older names used for this information, and also so that if we ever need to make changes again, that time we can do it in one place. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 20:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
+== Sorted by complexity? ==
+I think that almost always (perhaps simply always) this error-decreasing constraint results in a list whose member ETs are sorted by increasing complexity. I would be interested to see if this is true, and if so, note it in the article. Does anyone have an idea how to prove this one way or the other? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
+: The set of all GPVs can be sorted by complexity and is used here so that a "bigger ET" comes later than a "smaller ET". There's nothing to prove. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
+== Can ETs with non-uniform maps ever be optimal? ==
+On another discussion thread on this page, the question arose as to whether an ET with a non-uniform map could ever make it into an optimal ET sequence. I wanted to set this question aside on its own topic for further discussion. I agree with Fredg999 and Dave that it is an interesting question, but at this time, I don't have any particular ideas on how to answer it. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
+: Hard to answer. Guess it could happen in the higher ranks. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)