Patent val/Properties: Difference between revisions

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m Undo revision 167678 by ArrowHead294 (talk). There's no point in using a template argument separator where it's supposed to be an ordinary comma (punctuation), be it breaking or nonbreaking
Tag: Undo
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This page shows some properties of the '''generalized patent val''' ('''GPV''').  
{{Breadcrumb}}
This page shows some properties of [[patent val]]s as well as [[generalized patent val]]s (GPVs), although currently it is all about the latter.  


== To tell if a val is a GPV ==
== To tell if a val is a GPV ==
Suppose we have a ''p''-limit val v, to tell if it is a GPV:  
Suppose we have a ''p''-limit val ''V'', to tell if it is a GPV:  


For every prime ''q'' in the ''p''-limit, solve  
For every prime ''q'' in the ''p''-limit, solve for ''n'':


<math> \displaystyle
<math> \displaystyle
\operatorname {round} (n \log_2 q) = v_{\pi (q)} </math>
\operatorname {round} (n \log_2 q) = v_{\pi (q)} </math>


for ''n''. The solution is
The solution is


<math> \displaystyle
<math> \displaystyle
\frac {v_{\pi (q)} - 1/2}{\log_2 (q)} < n < \frac {v_{\pi (q)} + 1/2}{\log_2 (q)} </math>
\frac {v_{\pi (q)} - 1/2}{\log_2 (q)} < n < \frac {v_{\pi (q)} + 1/2}{\log_2 (q)} </math>


Let N<sub>1</sub>, N<sub>2</sub>, …, N<sub>π (''p'')</sub> denote the solution sets. Find  
Denote the solution sets as ''N''<sub>1</sub>, ''N''<sub>2</sub>, …, ''N''<sub>π(''p'')</sub>. Find their {{w|intersection (set theory)|intersection}} ''N'', that is,


<math> \displaystyle
<math> \displaystyle
\mathrm {N} = \bigcap_{i = 1}^{\pi (p)} \mathrm {N}_i </math>
N = \bigcap_{i = 1}^{\pi (p)} N_i </math>


Then v is a GPV of every edo in N if N is not empty; otherwise it is not a GPV.  
Then ''V'' is a GPV of every edo in ''N'' if ''N'' is non-empty and not a singleton (i.e. a single point); otherwise it is not a GPV.  


== Cardinality ==
== Cardinality ==
Given a finite prime limit, the set of all GPVs are [[Wikipedia: Countably infinite|countably infinite]].  
Given a finite prime limit, the set of all GPVs are {{w|countably infinite}}.  


== Adjacent GPVs property ==
== Sorting property ==
Given a finite prime limit, the set of all GPVs can be ordered in this way such that all but one entry in the GPV v<sub>''k''</sub> and its next GPV v<sub>''k'' + 1</sub> are the same, and for the different entry, the latter increments the former by 1.  
Given a finite prime limit, the set of all GPVs can be ordered in this way such that all but one entry in the GPV ''V''<sub>''k''</sub> and its next GPV {{nowrap|''V''<sub>''k'' + 1</sub>}} are the same, and for the different entry, the latter increments the former by 1.  


This property states that, for example, if it is known that {{val| 12 19 28 }} is a GPV, then the next GPV is one of {{val| 13 19 28 }}, {{val| 12 20 28 }}, or {{val| 12 19 29 }}.  
This property states that, for example, if it is known that {{val| 12 19 28 }} is a GPV, then the next GPV is one of {{val| 13 19 28 }}, {{val| 12 20 28 }}, or {{val| 12 19 29 }}.  


This also holds for any rationally independent subgroups, such as 2.3.7 and 2.9.7. It does not hold, however, for rationally dependent subgroups, such as 2.3.9.7, where at certain points of edo number ''N'', both the mappings for 3 and 9 increment.
This also holds for any rationally independent subgroups, such as 2.3.7 and 2.9.7, and even ''some'' rationally dependent subgroups, such as 2.3.9.7. It does not hold, however, for other rationally dependent subgroups, such as 2.3.27.7, where at certain points of edo number ''n'', both the mappings for 3 and 27 get an increment.


=== Proof ===
{{Proof
By definition, the ''p''-limit GPV of ''N''-edo is v (''N'') = round (''N'' log<sub>2</sub> (q)), where q is the prime basis {{val| 2, 3, 5, , ''p'' }}.  
| title=Proof
| contents=By definition, the ''p''-limit GPV of ''n''-edo is {{nowrap|''V''(''n'') {{=}} round(''n'' log<sub>2</sub>(''Q''))}}, where ''Q'' is the prime basis {{val| 2 3 5 … ''p'' }}.  


The adjacent GPVs property is equivalent to
To prove the sorting property, we need to prove
# for any prime ''q''<sub>''i''</sub> in q, there is a point of ''N'' to cause ''v''<sub>''i''</sub> to increment to ''v''<sub>''i''</sub> + 1; and
# For any prime ''q''<sub>''i''</sub> in ''Q'', there is a point of ''n'' at which ''v''<sub>''i''</sub> gets an increment; and
# for any distinct primes ''q''<sub>''i''</sub>, ''q''<sub>''j''</sub> in q, there is ''not'' a point of ''N'' to cause both ''v''<sub>''i''</sub> and ''v''<sub>''j''</sub> to increment to ''v''<sub>''i''</sub> + 1 and ''v''<sub>''j''</sub> + 1, respectively.
# For any distinct primes ''q''<sub>''i''</sub>, ''q''<sub>''j''</sub> in ''Q'', there is ''not'' a point of ''n'' at which both ''v''<sub>''i''</sub> and ''v''<sub>''j''</sub> get an increment;


<nowiki>#1</nowiki> holds because the point is ''N'' = (''v''<sub>''i''</sub> + 1/2)/log<sub>2</sub> (''q''<sub>''i''</sub>).  
where an increment of ''f''(''x'') at ''x''<sub>0</sub> is defined as lim {{nowrap|''x'' ''x''<sub>0</sub><sup>+</sup> ''f''(''x'')}} {{=}} {{nowrap|lim ''x'' → ''x''<sub>0</sub><sup>&minus;</sup> ''f''(''x'') + 1}}.  


To prove <nowiki>#2</nowiki>, let us assume there exists such an ''N''. By the property of the round function, an increment of ''y'' = round (''x'') occurs only if 2''x'' ∈ '''Z'''. Thus, for any distinct primes ''q''<sub>''i''</sub>, ''q''<sub>''j''</sub> in q, 2''N'' log<sub>2</sub> (''q''<sub>''i''</sub>) ∈ '''Z''', and 2''N'' log<sub>2</sub> (''q''<sub>''j''</sub>) ∈ '''Z'''. If that is the case, then their quotient (2''N'' log<sub>2</sub> (''q''<sub>''i''</sub>))/(2''N'' log<sub>2</sub> (''q''<sub>''j''</sub>)) = log<sub>''q''<sub>''j''</sub></sub> (''q''<sub>''i''</sub>) ∈ '''Q''', which contradicts [[Wikipedia: Gelfond–Schneider theorem|Gelfond–Schneider theorem]]. Therefore, the hypothesis is false, and such an ''N'' does not exist.
<nowiki/>#1 holds immediately following the definition of the round function, and the point is {{nowrap|''n'' {{=}} (''v''<sub>''i''</sub> + 1/2)/log<sub>2</sub>(''q''<sub>''i''</sub>)}}.
 
To prove #2, let us assume there exists such an ''n''. By the definition of the round function, an increment of {{nowrap|''y'' {{=}} round(''x'')}} occurs only if {{nowrap|2''x'' ∈ '''Z'''}}. Thus, for any distinct primes {{nowrap|''q''<sub>''i''</sub>, ''q''<sub>''j''</sub> ∈ ''Q''}}, {{nowrap|2''n'' log<sub>2</sub>(''q''<sub>''i''</sub>) ∈ '''Z'''}}, and {{nowrap|2''n'' log<sub>2</sub>(''q''<sub>''j''</sub>) ∈ '''Z'''}}. If that is the case, then their quotient {{nowrap|(2''n'' log<sub>2</sub>(''q''<sub>''i''</sub>))/(2''n'' log<sub>2</sub>(''q''<sub>''j''</sub>)) {{=}} log<sub>''q''<sub>''j''</sub></sub>(''q''<sub>''i''</sub>) ∈ '''Q'''}}, which contradicts {{w|Gelfond–Schneider theorem}}. Therefore, the hypothesis is false, and such an ''n'' does not exist.
}}


== Application ==
== Application ==
Given a finite prime limit, the above properties offer a way to iterate through all GPVs.  
Given a finite prime limit, the above properties offer a way to iterate through all GPVs. To roll forwards:
 
# Enter a GPV. Set {{nowrap|''i'' {{=}} 1}}.
# Copy the input and increase its ''i''-th entry by 1.
# Test if it is a GPV.
# If it is, return it and go back to step 1; otherwise, increase ''i'' by 1 and go back to step 2.
 
To roll backwards:


# Enter a GPV. Set ''i'' = 1.  
# Enter a GPV. Set {{nowrap|''i'' {{=}} 1}}.  
# Copy the input and increment its ''i''-th entry by 1.  
# Copy the input and decrease its ''i''-th entry by 1.  
# Test if it is a GPV.  
# Test if it is a GPV.  
# If it is, return it and back to step 1; otherwise, increment ''i'' by 1 and back to step 2.  
# If it is, return it and go back to step 1; otherwise, increase ''i'' by 1 and go back to step 2.  


Notice that the all-zero val is a GPV, you can always enter it for the first one. It is guaranteed that you can iterate through all GPVs in this method. In practice it is suggested starting with the last entry and going backwards for better performance, because the largest prime is most likely to increment.
Notice that the all-zero val is a GPV, so you can always enter it for the first one. It is guaranteed that you can iterate through all GPVs in this method. In practice it is recommended to start with the last entry and going backwards in step 2 for better performance, because the largest prime is most likely to increment.


[[Category:Regular temperament theory]]
[[Category:Regular temperament theory]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Math]]
[[Category:Val]]
[[Category:Val]]

Latest revision as of 13:33, 27 November 2024

This page shows some properties of patent vals as well as generalized patent vals (GPVs), although currently it is all about the latter.

To tell if a val is a GPV

Suppose we have a p-limit val V, to tell if it is a GPV:

For every prime q in the p-limit, solve for n:

[math]\displaystyle{ \displaystyle \operatorname {round} (n \log_2 q) = v_{\pi (q)} }[/math]

The solution is

[math]\displaystyle{ \displaystyle \frac {v_{\pi (q)} - 1/2}{\log_2 (q)} \lt n \lt \frac {v_{\pi (q)} + 1/2}{\log_2 (q)} }[/math]

Denote the solution sets as N1, N2, …, Nπ(p). Find their intersection N, that is,

[math]\displaystyle{ \displaystyle N = \bigcap_{i = 1}^{\pi (p)} N_i }[/math]

Then V is a GPV of every edo in N if N is non-empty and not a singleton (i.e. a single point); otherwise it is not a GPV.

Cardinality

Given a finite prime limit, the set of all GPVs are countably infinite.

Sorting property

Given a finite prime limit, the set of all GPVs can be ordered in this way such that all but one entry in the GPV Vk and its next GPV Vk + 1 are the same, and for the different entry, the latter increments the former by 1.

This property states that, for example, if it is known that 12 19 28] is a GPV, then the next GPV is one of 13 19 28], 12 20 28], or 12 19 29].

This also holds for any rationally independent subgroups, such as 2.3.7 and 2.9.7, and even some rationally dependent subgroups, such as 2.3.9.7. It does not hold, however, for other rationally dependent subgroups, such as 2.3.27.7, where at certain points of edo number n, both the mappings for 3 and 27 get an increment.

Proof
By definition, the p-limit GPV of n-edo is V(n) = round(n log2(Q)), where Q is the prime basis 2 3 5 … p].

To prove the sorting property, we need to prove

  1. For any prime qi in Q, there is a point of n at which vi gets an increment; and
  2. For any distinct primes qi, qj in Q, there is not a point of n at which both vi and vj get an increment;

where an increment of f(x) at x0 is defined as lim xx0+ f(x) = lim xx0 f(x) + 1.

#1 holds immediately following the definition of the round function, and the point is n = (vi + 1/2)/log2(qi).

To prove #2, let us assume there exists such an n. By the definition of the round function, an increment of y = round(x) occurs only if 2xZ. Thus, for any distinct primes qi, qjQ, 2n log2(qi) ∈ Z, and 2n log2(qj) ∈ Z. If that is the case, then their quotient (2n log2(qi))/(2n log2(qj)) = logqj(qi) ∈ Q, which contradicts Gelfond–Schneider theorem. Therefore, the hypothesis is false, and such an n does not exist. [math]\displaystyle{ \square }[/math]

Application

Given a finite prime limit, the above properties offer a way to iterate through all GPVs. To roll forwards:

  1. Enter a GPV. Set i = 1.
  2. Copy the input and increase its i-th entry by 1.
  3. Test if it is a GPV.
  4. If it is, return it and go back to step 1; otherwise, increase i by 1 and go back to step 2.

To roll backwards:

  1. Enter a GPV. Set i = 1.
  2. Copy the input and decrease its i-th entry by 1.
  3. Test if it is a GPV.
  4. If it is, return it and go back to step 1; otherwise, increase i by 1 and go back to step 2.

Notice that the all-zero val is a GPV, so you can always enter it for the first one. It is guaranteed that you can iterate through all GPVs in this method. In practice it is recommended to start with the last entry and going backwards in step 2 for better performance, because the largest prime is most likely to increment.