Talk:Pelog: Difference between revisions
Created page with "== "statistically significant" == The claim "The 2L 5s (antidiatonic) scale of 9edo approximates many pelog tunings in Javanese gamelan in a statistically significant manner" is indeed supported by the source, but it's kind of a bad source, to be honest. I'd consider the methodology bad enough that any claims of statistical significance are invalid. ~~~~" |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
– [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 22:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC) | – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 22:21, 17 April 2025 (UTC) | ||
: Yeah, the "statistically significant" is straight-up manipulative language I feel here. The statistics are that the majority of deviations *from* assumed 9edo intervals happened to fall within the closer half of the range of ''all'' deviations-from-9edo in the tuning set they studied. But they started out with a hypothesis of 9edo explaining pelog tunings. [[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 01:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC) | |||