Talk:The Riemann zeta function and tuning: Difference between revisions
Move topic and WSArchiveLink from previous talk page (dating from before the main page was moved and the talk page didn't follow) |
top 20 (and top 10) zeta edos |
||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
=== Alternate list based on unmodified zeta function === | === Alternate list based on unmodified zeta function === | ||
Here's a list based purely on unmodified zeta, in case someone proves the | Here's a list based purely on unmodified zeta, in case someone proves the alteration is wrong (though I'd still be interested in an "absolute" version of the list that includes an equal temperament if it's better than the 3rd-best-scorer so far). Because there's no accounting for the size of the equal temperament, I'm giving equal temperaments a lot of chances to appear to try to account for this bias, so that an equal temperament appears if it's better than the 9th-best-scorer so far. The other reason I give so many chances is that the resulting list is very similar and also surprisingly high-quality. | ||
Take a look at [[User:Godtone/zeta]] and compare edos you're unsure about to [[User:Godtone/optimal_edo_sequences]] by looking for number of occurrences. | Take a look at [[User:Godtone/zeta]] and compare edos you're unsure about to [[User:Godtone/optimal_edo_sequences]] by looking for number of occurrences. | ||
| Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
--[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 18:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC) | --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 18:39, 17 April 2025 (UTC) | ||
== Top 20 (and top 10) zeta edos == | |||
Since I got increasingly curious how high-quality the lists can be using the "top n" strategy applied to zeta peaks, I've detailed them and shared the lightly-modified code here: [[User:Godtone/zeta]] (same page I linked before). | |||