User talk:Godtone: Difference between revisions

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 143:

* I have a huge spot for cassandra and became one with it. Sorry if I come of as defensive or glaze it too much. Can't help myself.

That's all --[[User:Eufalesio|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio|talk]]) 09:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

: It appears "minicomma" is an idiosyncratic term, so I removed it. I moved the discussion of cassandra to the bottom to avoid the feeling of repetition of information as that way it feels more like a summary of what 41edo, 53edo and 94edo have in common. I have no issue with describing garibaldi as "arguably the best extension to schismic for bestowing prime 7 effectively", and I doubt any other fans of it do either. Generally, the issue I take with your writing is it's written very similarly to general exposition for temperaments on the xen wiki, where I'd instead recommend to try to write in a way that explains more clearly what the temperament is actually doing in terms of tuning without simply stating commas. For example, "inflating the rastma to a single step" is only meaningful if you already both know what the rastma is and why you would care about it, so I removed it in favour of a different wording that essentially says the same thing. The spirit of this concern is also reflected in the next paragraph. Also, fwiw, the info of why 53edo's 5-limit is tuned better is already kind of implicit in the initial explanation, but I do agree it could be clearer, though I'm not sure how to word it.

: I am confident all the info for 53edo is reasonably useful cuz it's specifically how it handles interseptimals that explains how its handling of primes 5 and 13 is better, but I'm not sure how to improve the paragraph to feel less verbose.

: Regarding S-expressions: I don't see what's wrong with using S-expressions in writing given you can read what they mean from the expression once you learn them, however, to address your concern, I've made it more self-evident what it means. But generally, the target audience is the curious, as once you know how to read them it's often easier to remember than the base 10 ratios. For this same reason, it's recommendable to avoid mentioning commas without explanation - this isn't a rule, but it should probably be added to the style guide. Notice that we have explanations of structures for other temperaments on the page. For example, for schismic, it's mentioned that "[[#Garibaldi]] finds [[~]][[8/7]] as [[9/8]] * [[81/80]] by tempering out [[5120/5103]] = [[64/63|S8]]/[[81/80|S9]], so that it prefers a slightly-sharp or just fifth", where any further explanation would serve to clutter* and decrease the density of the information, while any simpler explanation would probably miss out important information. That's generally the idea of using S-expressions. *Specifically, what I mean is there's a line in writing where you can't reasonably be expected to explain ''everything'' that is unfamiliar to a reader just because your reader might be a complete beginner, because if you assume that, you will need to explain arbitrarily simple concepts. Instead, you should assume that a reader is comfortable with ignoring some (ideally fairly minimal, but often this isn't practical) amount of "new" content to learn. In the case of S-expressions, all we are assuming really in these two examples is knowledge of what S''k'' means. Given this perspective, my perspective from talking to people disliking the xen wiki in the past is that writing a plain ratio will potentially serve to alienate the reader with a sense that the ratios must be memorised or having to click through every ratio to find why that ratio might be worth caring about, so it seems to me that a notation that self-explains the meaning of the comma is a preferable method, especially if we combine with the ratio for reference and especially if we try to give some helpful hints in the writing, where I only suggest this because I do agree that it's ideal to be as self-explaining as reasonably possible without clutter. I included a mention of 325/324's S-expressions at the end as it was explained how the comma was reached so the S-expressions serve as further interpretations of what it does.

: I'd like to note that I took great care in my original edit, deliberately trying to preserve as much of what you wrote as possible while adhering to what I thought was clearer writing in the spirit of compromise, so the rewriting feels a little ad-hoc.

: Anyways, please kindly take a careful read of the edit I did and let me know if you think any key information is still missing.

: Also, if I'm being honest, I find [this version](https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Bird%27s_eye_view_of_temperaments_by_accuracy&oldid=229781#Garibaldi) to be ideal so I'd be curious if you was willing to state what's wrong with that version, as it feels to me that all the important info is there and stated as efficiently as reasonable, which makes for a pleasant reading experience when reviewing temperaments on the page.

: --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 13:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

:: I generally did not find missing information, problem is that I found too much of it, specially in 53edo.

:: The key points I believe you'd agree on:

::* Garibaldi is a natural extension of schismic.

::* 10/9 - 9/8 - 8/7 are made equidistant, and the distance is a 81/80 ~ 64/63 ~ pythcomma. 5120/5103 is tempered out.

::* 41edo and 53edo are the coarsest tunings to support it. Its choice depends on whether to optimize for prime 11 or prime 13.

::* 41edo has a hemififth 11/9~27/22, good 11-limit, bad 15/13, 13/10.

::* 53edo has a hemifourth ~15/13, great 2.3.5.13, bad 14/11; 11/9 and 27/22 are made too far apart.

::* Both support cassandra, which extends garibaldi equating 39/32~11/9, and (10/9)^2 = ~16/13. 352/351 and 325/324 are tempered out.

::* 94edo, their sum, is close to optimal for cassandra.

::* 135edo and 147edo also support cassandra but with more inconsistencies.

:: How can we express them with max concision? On the topic of S-expression, I can't agree that S-expressions are easier to remember than ratios... I don't chunk them, I have to parse them. 5120/5103, 225/224, 32805/32768, 531441/524288, all are to me as a single thing, alongside many other commas whose ratios, monzos, names I've memorized. I find ratios, monzos or names much easier to memorize (within reason), and I alternate between the three. --[[User:Eufalesio|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio|talk]]) 16:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

::: I reject your argument of "easy to memorise" as there's far too many commas for that (as many could tell you) and because as proof of this, I'm probably the person on XA who is ''most comfortable'' with reading temperament info in the form of the pure ratios. Take a look at how much of my post history is raw comma ratios if you don't believe me ^_^;. I specifically discovered the S-expression-based comma families ''because'' of very common patterns in the kinds of commas I wanted to temper out or equate, like:

::: S''k'' = (''k''/(''k''-1))/((''k''+1)/k) and S''k''/S(''k''+1) = (''k''+2)/(''k''-1) / ((''k''+1)/''k'')<sup>3</sup>, and I then discovered S(''k''-1)/S(''k''+1) [[S-expression#Sk/S(k_+_2)_(semiparticulars)|had a general meaning too]] as well as (the much more obvious) S''k''*S(''k''+1)*...*S(''k''+''n''-1) = (''k''/(''k''-1)) / ((''k''+''n'')/(''k''+''n''-1)).

::: In other words, my recommendation for practicality is that commas that ''don't'' uniquely fit into an S-expression-based infinite comma family with a clear meaning are ones that should be memorised. (And if there's a comma that fits into multiple families, that's usually notable enough that it's worth bothering to memorise all of its S-expressions, so in that case I like stating all of its known S-expressions.) Basically I'm saying, if you're struggling to remember S-expressions, that's because they're not ''supposed'' to be memorised; you're supposed to ''read'' what they do ''from the expression'', which if you actually know your commas, will easily tell you what comma it corresponds to. Hopefully I explained that well enough.

::: --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 17:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

::: Separately, the key points you believe I'd agree on aren't really all that useful to me because they don't really address anything that I actually said, as it gives me no idea what you actually take issue with in my writing other than S-expressions, and it's already clear in this page that the writing style is supposed to be different from the rest of the xen wiki cuz of being aimed at being a compendium of useful rank 2 temperaments. (I think covering other ranks is going to make things too complicated/confusing probably/realistically, so it's probably best to keep it at rank 2 given a lot of the most useful rank 3 temperaments like marvel have a bunch of rank 2 interpretations anyways.) Anyways, if it's more convenient to you than reading dense writing, I'd be happy to talk on Discord. (I've pinged you there.) --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 17:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 143: / Line 143: @@
 * I have a huge spot for cassandra and became one with it. Sorry if I come of as defensive or glaze it too much. Can't help myself.
 That's all --[[User:Eufalesio|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio|talk]]) 09:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
+: It appears "minicomma" is an idiosyncratic term, so I removed it. I moved the discussion of cassandra to the bottom to avoid the feeling of repetition of information as that way it feels more like a summary of what 41edo, 53edo and 94edo have in common. I have no issue with describing garibaldi as "arguably the best extension to schismic for bestowing prime 7 effectively", and I doubt any other fans of it do either. Generally, the issue I take with your writing is it's written very similarly to general exposition for temperaments on the xen wiki, where I'd instead recommend to try to write in a way that explains more clearly what the temperament is actually doing in terms of tuning without simply stating commas. For example, "inflating the rastma to a single step" is only meaningful if you already both know what the rastma is and why you would care about it, so I removed it in favour of a different wording that essentially says the same thing. The spirit of this concern is also reflected in the next paragraph. Also, fwiw, the info of why 53edo's 5-limit is tuned better is already kind of implicit in the initial explanation, but I do agree it could be clearer, though I'm not sure how to word it.
+: I am confident all the info for 53edo is reasonably useful cuz it's specifically how it handles interseptimals that explains how its handling of primes 5 and 13 is better, but I'm not sure how to improve the paragraph to feel less verbose.
+: Regarding S-expressions: I don't see what's wrong with using S-expressions in writing given you can read what they mean from the expression once you learn them, however, to address your concern, I've made it more self-evident what it means. But generally, the target audience is the curious, as once you know how to read them it's often easier to remember than the base 10 ratios. For this same reason, it's recommendable to avoid mentioning commas without explanation - this isn't a rule, but it should probably be added to the style guide. Notice that we have explanations of structures for other temperaments on the page. For example, for schismic, it's mentioned that "[[#Garibaldi]] finds [[~]][[8/7]] as [[9/8]] * [[81/80]] by tempering out [[5120/5103]] = [[64/63|S8]]/[[81/80|S9]], so that it prefers a slightly-sharp or just fifth", where any further explanation would serve to clutter* and decrease the density of the information, while any simpler explanation would probably miss out important information. That's generally the idea of using S-expressions. *Specifically, what I mean is there's a line in writing where you can't reasonably be expected to explain ''everything'' that is unfamiliar to a reader just because your reader might be a complete beginner, because if you assume that, you will need to explain arbitrarily simple concepts. Instead, you should assume that a reader is comfortable with ignoring some (ideally fairly minimal, but often this isn't practical) amount of "new" content to learn. In the case of S-expressions, all we are assuming really in these two examples is knowledge of what S''k'' means. Given this perspective, my perspective from talking to people disliking the xen wiki in the past is that writing a plain ratio will potentially serve to alienate the reader with a sense that the ratios must be memorised or having to click through every ratio to find why that ratio might be worth caring about, so it seems to me that a notation that self-explains the meaning of the comma is a preferable method, especially if we combine with the ratio for reference and especially if we try to give some helpful hints in the writing, where I only suggest this because I do agree that it's ideal to be as self-explaining as reasonably possible without clutter. I included a mention of 325/324's S-expressions at the end as it was explained how the comma was reached so the S-expressions serve as further interpretations of what it does.
+: I'd like to note that I took great care in my original edit, deliberately trying to preserve as much of what you wrote as possible while adhering to what I thought was clearer writing in the spirit of compromise, so the rewriting feels a little ad-hoc.
+: Anyways, please kindly take a careful read of the edit I did and let me know if you think any key information is still missing.
+: Also, if I'm being honest, I find [this version](https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Bird%27s_eye_view_of_temperaments_by_accuracy&oldid=229781#Garibaldi) to be ideal so I'd be curious if you was willing to state what's wrong with that version, as it feels to me that all the important info is there and stated as efficiently as reasonable, which makes for a pleasant reading experience when reviewing temperaments on the page.
+: --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 13:20, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
+:: I generally did not find missing information, problem is that I found too much of it, specially in 53edo.
+:: The key points I believe you'd agree on:
+::* Garibaldi is a natural extension of schismic.
+::* 10/9 - 9/8 - 8/7 are made equidistant, and the distance is a 81/80 ~ 64/63 ~ pythcomma. 5120/5103 is tempered out.
+::* 41edo and 53edo are the coarsest tunings to support it. Its choice depends on whether to optimize for prime 11 or prime 13.
+::* 41edo has a hemififth 11/9~27/22, good 11-limit, bad 15/13, 13/10.
+::* 53edo has a hemifourth ~15/13, great 2.3.5.13, bad 14/11; 11/9 and 27/22 are made too far apart.
+::* Both support cassandra, which extends garibaldi equating 39/32~11/9, and (10/9)^2 = ~16/13. 352/351 and 325/324 are tempered out.
+::* 94edo, their sum, is close to optimal for cassandra.
+::* 135edo and 147edo also support cassandra but with more inconsistencies.
+:: How can we express them with max concision? On the topic of S-expression, I can't agree that S-expressions are easier to remember than ratios... I don't chunk them, I have to parse them. 5120/5103, 225/224, 32805/32768, 531441/524288, all are to me as a single thing, alongside many other commas whose ratios, monzos, names I've memorized. I find ratios, monzos or names much easier to memorize (within reason), and I alternate between the three. --[[User:Eufalesio|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio|talk]]) 16:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
+::: I reject your argument of "easy to memorise" as there's far too many commas for that (as many could tell you) and because as proof of this, I'm probably the person on XA who is ''most comfortable'' with reading temperament info in the form of the pure ratios. Take a look at how much of my post history is raw comma ratios if you don't believe me ^_^;. I specifically discovered the S-expression-based comma families ''because'' of very common patterns in the kinds of commas I wanted to temper out or equate, like:
+::: S''k'' = (''k''/(''k''-1))/((''k''+1)/k) and S''k''/S(''k''+1) = (''k''+2)/(''k''-1) / ((''k''+1)/''k'')<sup>3</sup>, and I then discovered S(''k''-1)/S(''k''+1) [[S-expression#Sk/S(k_+_2)_(semiparticulars)|had a general meaning too]] as well as (the much more obvious) S''k''*S(''k''+1)*...*S(''k''+''n''-1) = (''k''/(''k''-1)) / ((''k''+''n'')/(''k''+''n''-1)).
+::: In other words, my recommendation for practicality is that commas that ''don't'' uniquely fit into an S-expression-based infinite comma family with a clear meaning are ones that should be memorised. (And if there's a comma that fits into multiple families, that's usually notable enough that it's worth bothering to memorise all of its S-expressions, so in that case I like stating all of its known S-expressions.) Basically I'm saying, if you're struggling to remember S-expressions, that's because they're not ''supposed'' to be memorised; you're supposed to ''read'' what they do ''from the expression'', which if you actually know your commas, will easily tell you what comma it corresponds to. Hopefully I explained that well enough.
+::: --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 17:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
+::: Separately, the key points you believe I'd agree on aren't really all that useful to me because they don't really address anything that I actually said, as it gives me no idea what you actually take issue with in my writing other than S-expressions, and it's already clear in this page that the writing style is supposed to be different from the rest of the xen wiki cuz of being aimed at being a compendium of useful rank 2 temperaments. (I think covering other ranks is going to make things too complicated/confusing probably/realistically, so it's probably best to keep it at rank 2 given a lot of the most useful rank 3 temperaments like marvel have a bunch of rank 2 interpretations anyways.) Anyways, if it's more convenient to you than reading dense writing, I'd be happy to talk on Discord. (I've pinged you there.) --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 17:09, 7 May 2026 (UTC)