Inverse-complexity-prescaled complexity: Difference between revisions
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) prime-count vector → vector |
ArrowHead294 (talk | contribs) m Update links |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This article is a cautionary tale for anyone who (as I, [[Douglas Blumeyer]], did) got temporarily seduced and totally confused about: using the inverse of a complexity prescaler with a [[interval complexity|complexity]] function, i.e. one that is [[ | This article is a cautionary tale for anyone who (as I, [[Douglas Blumeyer]], did) got temporarily seduced and totally confused about: using the inverse of a complexity prescaler with a [[interval complexity|complexity]] function, i.e. one that is [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT/All-interval tuning schemes#Normifying complexities|in (prescaled) norm form]]. Inverse-complexity-prescaled complexity functions: don't use them! Now that I have good enough terminology for the constituent parts, the name itself seems as self-contradictory as the concept. | ||
So why would someone ever want to try this? Well, I had looked into it because I was curious about the limitation of [[all-interval tuning scheme]]s whereby they only work with [[simplicity-weight]] [[damage]]. I'd wondered if there was nonetheless a way to achieve complexity-weight-like effects anyway. As you will see from this article, the answer is a very slight "sort of", but at such a cost of reasonableness that there's no way it could be worth it. | So why would someone ever want to try this? Well, I had looked into it because I was curious about the limitation of [[all-interval tuning scheme]]s whereby they only work with [[simplicity-weight]] [[damage]]. I'd wondered if there was nonetheless a way to achieve complexity-weight-like effects anyway. As you will see from this article, the answer is a very slight "sort of", but at such a cost of reasonableness that there's no way it could be worth it. | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
Let's see what we'd get if we chose our default complexity, [[log-product complexity|log-product]] <math>\text{lp-C}()</math> in this case. This means substitute in: | Let's see what we'd get if we chose our default complexity, [[log-product complexity|log-product]] <math>\text{lp-C}()</math> in this case. This means substitute in: | ||
* <math>1</math> in place of our [[ | * <math>1</math> in place of our [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT/All-interval tuning schemes#Power norms|norm power]] <math>q</math>, | ||
* the log-prime matrix <math>L</math> in place of <math>X</math>, and | * the log-prime matrix <math>L</math> in place of <math>X</math>, and | ||
* its inverse <math>L^{-1}</math> in place of <math>X^{-1}</math>. | * its inverse <math>L^{-1}</math> in place of <math>X^{-1}</math>. | ||