Talk:Diaschismic: Difference between revisions

(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)

Line 11:

:: – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 20:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

: I think the srutal vs diaschismic page is hopeless and I can't care less about it, which is why I created this page for a fresh start. Moreover I'd like to keep this place to discuss diaschismic as a 17-limit temp, like catakleismic as a no-17 19-limit temp, so of course I object to merging. Instead I'd like to eventually have one page for each 7-limit temp. As for the no-7 temp, it could remain under srutal vs diaschismic or changed to something like srutal archagall.

: I think the srutal vs diaschismic page is hopeless and I can't care less about it, which is why I created this page for a fresh start. Moreover I'd like to keep this place to discuss diaschismic as a 17-limit temp, like catakleismic as a no-17 19-limit temp, so of course I object to merging. Instead I'd like to eventually have one page for each 7-limit temp in the diaschismic family, tho this won't happen too soon. As for the no-7 temp, it could remain under srutal vs diaschismic or changed to something like srutal archagall.

: Canonicity of septimal diaschismic may be reasoned on the fact that the 5-limit optimum is around 46edo in certain optimization schemes, not significantly sharper.

: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 20:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:: I'm fine with septimal diaschismic being canonical, honestly (though it should still be called ''septimal'' diaschismic in my book) since "srutal" is way more complex and pajara is just not accurate enough. I'll still port over some material from that page and make the separation more clear between the basic 2.3.5.17 temp and the canonical extension to 7, 11, and 13. (Don't quite know how "canonical" the 11 and 13 really are.) -- [[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 21:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 :: – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 20:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
-: I think the srutal vs diaschismic page is hopeless and I can't care less about it, which is why I created this page for a fresh start. Moreover I'd like to keep this place to discuss diaschismic as a 17-limit temp, like catakleismic as a no-17 19-limit temp, so of course I object to merging. Instead I'd like to eventually have one page for each 7-limit temp. As for the no-7 temp, it could remain under srutal vs diaschismic or changed to something like srutal archagall.
+: I think the srutal vs diaschismic page is hopeless and I can't care less about it, which is why I created this page for a fresh start. Moreover I'd like to keep this place to discuss diaschismic as a 17-limit temp, like catakleismic as a no-17 19-limit temp, so of course I object to merging. Instead I'd like to eventually have one page for each 7-limit temp in the diaschismic family, tho this won't happen too soon. As for the no-7 temp, it could remain under srutal vs diaschismic or changed to something like srutal archagall.
 : Canonicity of septimal diaschismic may be reasoned on the fact that the 5-limit optimum is around 46edo in certain optimization schemes, not significantly sharper.
 : [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 20:39, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
+:: I'm fine with septimal diaschismic being canonical, honestly (though it should still be called ''septimal'' diaschismic in my book) since "srutal" is way more complex and pajara is just not accurate enough. I'll still port over some material from that page and make the separation more clear between the basic 2.3.5.17 temp and the canonical extension to 7, 11, and 13. (Don't quite know how "canonical" the 11 and 13 really are.) -- [[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 21:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)