Xenharmonic Wiki talk:Things to do: Difference between revisions

← Older edit

VisualWikitext

@@ Line 315: / Line 315: @@
 To use this to find a reasonably objective measurement of what subgroups are best, we can add a few logical restrictions on this rather general definition:<br/>
 * Consider the monzos of the harmonics in any S as r-dimensional vectors (AKA, interpreted as members of N^r), corresponding to the p_r-prime-limit with p_r the r'th prime, and with p_r not exceeding L. These vectors must be linearly independent, so as to not represent a "pathological" subgroup which can have multiple mappings for the same positive integer.
-* Then, if we assume that all harmonics in the subgroup are harmonics we want to approximate, we can think about the logarithmic size of each harmonic as the amount of information it generates, because smaller harmonics generate more of the harmonic series, especially when combined with other small harmonics, hence leading to prime limits as the most efficient subgroup representations of the harmonic series, with "efficient" being defined as "generates the most harmonics considering the number of generators". This leads to about the most natural formulation I can currently think of which is relatively straightforward and (as a sanity check) which is used on the page for [[The Riemann Zeta Function and Tuning]], which is weighting each generator by the reciprocal of the log of its size. To then make the definition invariant to the number of generators, you can make the weightings sum to 1 by multiplying by an appropriate scalar.
+* Then, if we assume that all harmonics in the subgroup are harmonics we want to approximate, we can think about the logarithmic size of each harmonic as the amount of information it generates, because smaller harmonics generate more of the harmonic series, especially when combined with other small harmonics, hence leading to prime limits as the most efficient subgroup representations of the harmonic series, with "efficient" being defined as "generates the most harmonics considering the number of generators". This leads to about the most natural formulation I can currently think of which is relatively straightforward and (as a sanity check) which is used on the page for [[The Riemann zeta function and tuning]], which is weighting each generator by the reciprocal of the log of its size. To then make the definition invariant to the number of generators, you can make the weightings sum to 1 by multiplying by an appropriate scalar.
 * Then, to find the subgroups that nEDk best approximates relative to its step size, simply look at all choices for subsets of L where all harmonics are linearly independent and where the error is low enough to guarantee a good level of [[consistency]], and sort results by increasing errors. Note that this becomes very computationally intensive for large L, so L=30, L=42, L=58, L=96 and at most L=126 are all good restrictions, depending on what is computationally feasible in a reasonable amount of time.<br/>(The choices of L that I listed here are based on prime limits (specifically, record prime gaps, and 30 is 2*3*5 so its significant) with the exception of 58 which is based on the 53-prime-limit being the highest limit available on x31eq. Note that larger L can be used for small ETs if we restrict accuracy sufficiently or consider only lower-prime-limit subsets of L.)
 * As for making the search more computationally feasible, there is an easy way to eliminate possibilities, which is by adding harmonics in order of increasing error relative to the error of some starting harmonic until there are none left in L or none left that wouldn't introduce too much error. This provides an easy way to define "families of subgroup interpretations" by increasing error and through superset/subset relationships as well as compatibility relations, which could be an interesting direction to take this in of itself.<br/>(I wonder how related it'd be to [[Xenharmonic_Wiki_talk:Things_to_do#13-Limit, 17-Limit and 19-Limit Comma Pages|families of temperaments]]? Seems like it'd be strongly related, and better yet, suggest potential ways of organising relatively unknown temperaments.)
 A few notes on the mathematics:
-* I pick the variance over the standard deviation because squaring the error leads to a "least-squares" optimisation, which is then much more "compatible" with the tuning optimisations represented by the Riemann Zeta function.
+* I pick the variance over the standard deviation because squaring the error leads to a "least-squares" optimisation, which is then much more "compatible" with the tuning optimisations represented by the Riemann zeta function.
 * We can take an alternative strategy to tuning a subgroup less focused on the regular temperament theory interpretation and more focused on what consonant chords and intervals are approximated that you want to use. In such a case, you pick ''any'' subset of X corresponding to ''any'' subset of L, which is to say that the r-dimensional vectors ''are not'' required (or even recommended) to be linearly independent. Then the subset of L represents a generalisation of [[odd limit]]s, where odd limits are specific to where your subset of L is only odd harmonics due to the discarding of 2's in the prime factorisations due to being specific to ED2s. This interpretation/use fits very nicely with the notion of [[Consistent#Consistency_to_distance_d|consistency to distance d]], with the standard deviation being an "expected overall consistency" which is less discrete/rigid. The only potential problem with this is it seems like a very large number of possibilities can result with different subsets being preferable for subjective reasons.
 --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 04:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
@@ Line 347: / Line 347: @@
 :: Alright. It's not my intention to restrict creative work in any way. [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 09:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
+== Too many short interval pages to fit in "todo:expand" or "stubs" ==
+; The problem
+There are 303 pages in Category:Todo:expand, including 42 interval pages.
+There are 1,072 pages in Category:Stubs, including 61 interval pages.
+There are 1,043 pages in Category:Rational intervals.
+Currently, stub interval pages are being under-reported: using the "Threshold for stub link formatting" preference and setting it to a value that lines up with Category:Stubs, it flags about 90% of interval pages as a potential stub. That’d be about 900 pages.
+If we were to actually mark those as stubs or todo:expand as current convention suggests, it would completely overwhelm both todo categories and make it difficult to actually use them.
+I have three proposed solutions we could choose from. Which one does everyone prefer? Or do you have your own ones to suggest?
+; Solution A - stricter criteria
+We make the criteria for including interval pages in either category more strict than it would be for other types of pages:
+* For inclusion in "stubs", an interval page should have to be extremely barebones, only about one sentence of human text.
+* For inclusion in "todo:expand", an interval page should have to be highly notable (e.g. 6/5, 7/1, etc.) OR should have to show an obvious specific way it ought to be expanded (though in that case "todo:complete section" may often fit better).
+''If we go with this solution, I will go through all the interval pages currently in "stubs" or "todo:expand", and remove those categories from any pages that don't meet the above criteria.''
+''Then I will to go through the rest of Category:Rational intervals and add “stub” or “todo:expand” to all pages which ''do'' meet the criteria (there likely aren’t many, given the strict criteria).''
+''All edits will be marked as minor.''
+; Solution B - new todo categories for interval pages
+We create the categories "todo:expand interval page" and "todo:interval stub".
+We continue categorising interval pages exactly the same way we do now, except using those two new categories on interval pages in place of "todo:expand" and "stub".
+''If we go with this solution, I will make category pages for "todo:expand interval page" and "todo:interval stub".''
+''Then I will go through all the interval pages currently in "stubs" or "todo:expand", and move them to "todo:expand interval page" or "todo:interval stub".''
+''Then I will go through the rest of Category:Rational intervals and add "todo:expand interval page" and "todo:interval stub" to all pages which they apply to.''
+''All edits will be marked as minor.''
+; Solution C - new todo category for critical pages
+We create the category "todo:expand critical page" for any stub or todo:expand pages where the subject matter has especially broad relevance to multiple other concepts in xen, and it makes sense to focus on expanding those key pages first before all the other stuff.
+''If we go with this solution, I will make the category page for "todo:expand critical page".''
+''Then I will go through all the  pages currently in "stubs" or "todo:expand", and move any ones with broad xenharmonic relevance to "todo:expand critical page". I suspect there won't be many, maybe around 20. We can always add others later if I miss some.''
+''All edits will be marked as minor.''
+; Conclusion
+Of all of these, I prefer solution B. It seems like the least convoluted or clunky. I’m okay with any of the solutions though. But what do others think?
+I'll wait until January 1st, Sydney time, to take any action so there's time for everyone to discuss.
+(''If discussions are still ongoing as of Jan 1, I'll postpone any action until some consensus is reached.'')
+(''If no one has commented by Jan 1, I will ask on the talk pages of a couple more experienced editors and I’ll follow their advice.'')
+--[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 04:30, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
+: I have a preference for solution A. We can think of a few criteria to determine what's an important interval page, e.g. below some threshold for at least one metric, from a list of a few relevant metrics (we might want to discuss this on Discord and/or poll the community for their input). Otherwise, I wouldn't want to make it look like there's an urgent need to fill hundreds of pages with content without any obvious need from the community, and that is why I don't like solutions B and C as much. In general, stuff like stub and todo templates should be placed while taking into consideration the importance of the page, so it's expected that narrower topics have shorter pages, including very specific intervals with fewer applications; those can be expanded at any time, of course, but we don't necessarily need a flashing light pointing to them. By the way, thank you for offering to help with recategorizing the pages, this is a big amount of manual work and it is appreciated. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 06:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
+:: Thank you for the input, after reading your explanation I too am leaning towards solution A. I will wait to see what others say first, but if that’s also how others are feeling, then I’ll be happy to take that route.
+:: If we do end up going with Solution A, then on Jan 1, I will first of all just look through all the interval pages currently marked as stub or todo:expand, and see what types of groups they fall into.
+:: Then I will run a poll on which of those groups of interval pages are important to expand, and which ones are not. Then I will add or remove the categories to pages based on the criteria set by the poll results.
+:: Thank you again for your help :) And Happy Holidays as well :) --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 06:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
+:: …
+:: I am posting this update for a general audience rather than for Fredg999 specifically: While not strictly part of this same topic, I removed stub boxes from EDO pages bigger than 1000 for the same reasons that were discussed here: ("''In general, stuff like stub and todo templates should be placed while taking into consideration the importance of the page, so it's expected that narrower topics have shorter pages, including very specific intervals with fewer applications; those can be expanded at any time, of course, but we don't necessarily need a flashing light pointing to them''").
+:: If it happens that any of the specific edo pages I removed stub from actually is important to a bunch of other pages, then of course anyone can feel free to add the stub box back to those specific ones. I just suspect that for more of them than not, they probably didn’t need the stub box, considering their step size is way way below the just noticeable difference and some were even marked as novelties.
+:: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 19:15, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
+:: …
+:: It is now Jan 1 Sydney time so I’m going ahead with Solution A, and with the survey. Please vote in the survey here: [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScFzn4u5FR-QXm4FYf1UOmIzcIj9AHV6NGFdzSvwvUYvcnMxw/viewform?usp=dialog ''Survey about interval pages in Todo:expand and Stubs'' - Google Forms]. --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 23:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
+:: …
+:: I have concluded the survey now, and based on the results, come up with these guidelines: [[Xenharmonic Wiki:Optional guidelines for interval page todo categories]]. XW:IntTodo for short. (Survey results included in that page too.) --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
+:: …
+:: Over the past 24 hours, I have gone through all pages in Category:Rational intervals, and ensured they are all in the correct categories according to XW:IntTodo. For unclear edge cases, I just left them how they are and didn’t change them. It ended up being that by far most pages were already in the correct categories anyway, so I didn’t have to change very much.
+:: Since the guidelines are optional, no one really needs to think or worry about them moving forwards, they are just there if anyone wants them as an aid to guide decision making. They helped me though, I feel much more satisfied now, knowing that there’s at least a loose system behind what page goes where :)
+:: Thank you to everyone who helped in this process, especially Fredg999 for the earlier comment that set me on this path.
+:: --[[User:BudjarnLambeth|BudjarnLambeth]] ([[User talk:BudjarnLambeth|talk]]) 23:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)