Talk:847/845: Difference between revisions

(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 29:

::::: [[User:Squib|Squib]] ([[User talk:Squib|talk]]) 02:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

:::::: > The significance of the 5.7.11.13 subgroup is primarily due to its lack of primes 2 and 3, which play unique roles in traditional music and much of microtonal music.

:::::: Why does the lack of primes 2 and 3 makes the subgroup ''significant'' rather than ''insignificant''?

:::::: > This forces the exploration of new harmony.

:::::: What new harmony? The utility of the concept is unproven without a constructive compositional theory. Do you have such a theory?

:::::: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

::::::: You're putting the cart before the horse. The value of the 5.7.11.13 subgroup is precisely that it is incompatible with existing compositional theories; the whole point of XA is to explore unfamiliar harmony. We don't need a fully realized compositional theory to document a subgroup's musical potential. I'm trying to build one, and documenting the intervals that are available once the familiar ones are gone is a necessary step. [[User:Squib|Squib]] ([[User talk:Squib|talk]]) 10:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

:::::::: At this point you're essentially waving the interesting number paradox as a magic wand. Plz don't do that; read our Notability Guidelines.

:::::::: > the whole point of XA is to explore unfamiliar harmony.

:::::::: Not really…

:::::::: > I'm trying to build one.

:::::::: I'll patiently wait.

:::::::: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC) (updated [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC))

::::::::: This isn't the interesting number paradox. The roles of 2 and 3 aren't being taken up by the next "uninteresting" primes; I'm trying to abandon those roles entirely. That's what makes this subgroup notable. [[User:Squib|Squib]] ([[User talk:Squib|talk]]) 13:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

::::::::: > I'll patiently wait.

::::::::: I see your point. I haven't documented this system yet, so readers don't have the context to understand what makes the interval relationship meaningful. Documenting it all from scratch is daunting, though... [[User:Squib|Squib]] ([[User talk:Squib|talk]]) 16:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ::::: [[User:Squib|Squib]] ([[User talk:Squib|talk]]) 02:14, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
+:::::: > The significance of the 5.7.11.13 subgroup is primarily due to its lack of primes 2 and 3, which play unique roles in traditional music and much of microtonal music.
+:::::: Why does the lack of primes 2 and 3 makes the subgroup ''significant'' rather than ''insignificant''?
+:::::: > This forces the exploration of new harmony.
+:::::: What new harmony? The utility of the concept is unproven without a constructive compositional theory. Do you have such a theory?
+:::::: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:46, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
+::::::: You're putting the cart before the horse. The value of the 5.7.11.13 subgroup is precisely that it is incompatible with existing compositional theories; the whole point of XA is to explore unfamiliar harmony. We don't need a fully realized compositional theory to document a subgroup's musical potential. I'm trying to build one, and documenting the intervals that are available once the familiar ones are gone is a necessary step. [[User:Squib|Squib]] ([[User talk:Squib|talk]]) 10:55, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
+:::::::: At this point you're essentially waving the interesting number paradox as a magic wand. Plz don't do that; read our Notability Guidelines.
+:::::::: > the whole point of XA is to explore unfamiliar harmony.
+:::::::: Not really…
+:::::::: > I'm trying to build one.
+:::::::: I'll patiently wait.
+:::::::: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:58, 23 May 2026 (UTC) (updated [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:15, 23 May 2026 (UTC))
+::::::::: This isn't the interesting number paradox. The roles of 2 and 3 aren't being taken up by the next "uninteresting" primes; I'm trying to abandon those roles entirely. That's what makes this subgroup notable. [[User:Squib|Squib]] ([[User talk:Squib|talk]]) 13:33, 23 May 2026 (UTC)
+::::::::: > I'll patiently wait.
+::::::::: I see your point. I haven't documented this system yet, so readers don't have the context to understand what makes the interval relationship meaningful. Documenting it all from scratch is daunting, though... [[User:Squib|Squib]] ([[User talk:Squib|talk]]) 16:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)