Talk:39edo: Difference between revisions

(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 28:

: Overall, I think 39 and 39d should have about equal coverage, with structures in both presented. The page definitely should explain how 39d improves accuracy of many intervals, and it should be up to the reader to decide which perspective they agree with, and which mapping to use. --[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 17:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

:: I agree with Overthink on this front. At the very least, the patent val should be given in the interval table, and it should probably be discussed in other parts of the page, but I recognize 39d as a legitimate interpretation as well. Most people looking for an edo to use don't really care about TE either. -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 10:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

::: > I agree with Overthink on this front. […]

::: This is not a poll. Address my points and back your own points with reasoning.

::: > Most people looking for an edo to use don't really care about TE either.

::: You don't have to "care about TE" to see why 39d is clearly the best val. I showed three aspects for it, only one of which deals with TE errors, so my other two aspects still stand. TE errors here are but a math model to quantify the general observation that 39d is the most accurate mapping, considerably more so than the second place, and that 39 patent isn't necessarily the second place.

::: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

:: That sounds very sensible — put my vote in for that as well. [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 18:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

:: > Not everyone agrees that more accurate necessarily means "better", and that patent vals are completely arbitrary.

:: That's why I need these ppl to hear me out.

:: > The patent val isn't completely uninteresting, supporting structures like immunity and triforce.

:: I think it's less interesting than 39c. I think Leri has made a case for 39d vs 39c, so dual-5 dual-7, which is more acceptable than dual-7 alone. I should add that the prime 17 in 39c doesn't really work given it tunes 17/16 < 18/17, and that 39d might benefit more from a 19 than 13 tho I don't really mind 39df. I also think 2.3.25.35.11 is too sparse a subgroup to be interesting. Overall I'm willing to take the compromise of two columns, one based on 39d and the other based on 39c, with the patent val deducible from them.

:: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 20:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

:: So, as I'm editing the table for a 39c column, I've realized 39c isn't significantly better than 39. In light of this, I propose two tables. First for 39d as we had before (plus primes 13 and 19 via 39df), and a second table for a comparison on various other mappings: 39 in 2.25.35.11, 39c, 39, and 39d. This will cater to more demands than ever. Those who don't think of 39 as a dual-prime system get their cleaner table, and those who do get their table too.

:: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

::: Seems like an okay solution, worth a try. --[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 20:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

: I have no opinion on 39et in particular, but I will agree that "patentness" is a completely arbitrary quality and the procedure of rounding is merely heuristic to get something that usually works. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 19:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 : Overall, I think 39 and 39d should have about equal coverage, with structures in both presented. The page definitely should explain how 39d improves accuracy of many intervals, and it should be up to the reader to decide which perspective they agree with, and which mapping to use. --[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 17:08, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
+:: I agree with Overthink on this front. At the very least, the patent val should be given in the interval table, and it should probably be discussed in other parts of the page, but I recognize 39d as a legitimate interpretation as well. Most people looking for an edo to use don't really care about TE either. -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 10:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
+::: > I agree with Overthink on this front. […]
+::: This is not a poll. Address my points and back your own points with reasoning.
+::: > Most people looking for an edo to use don't really care about TE either.
+::: You don't have to "care about TE" to see why 39d is clearly the best val. I showed three aspects for it, only one of which deals with TE errors, so my other two aspects still stand. TE errors here are but a math model to quantify the general observation that 39d is the most accurate mapping, considerably more so than the second place, and that 39 patent isn't necessarily the second place.
+::: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:05, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
+:: That sounds very sensible &mdash; put my vote in for that as well.  [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 18:36, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
+:: > Not everyone agrees that more accurate necessarily means "better", and that patent vals are completely arbitrary.
+:: That's why I need these ppl to hear me out.
+:: > The patent val isn't completely uninteresting, supporting structures like immunity and triforce.
+:: I think it's less interesting than 39c. I think Leri has made a case for 39d vs 39c, so dual-5 dual-7, which is more acceptable than dual-7 alone. I should add that the prime 17 in 39c doesn't really work given it tunes 17/16 < 18/17, and that 39d might benefit more from a 19 than 13 tho I don't really mind 39df. I also think 2.3.25.35.11 is too sparse a subgroup to be interesting. Overall I'm willing to take the compromise of two columns, one based on 39d and the other based on 39c, with the patent val deducible from them.
+:: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 20:30, 30 May 2026 (UTC)
+:: So, as I'm editing the table for a 39c column, I've realized 39c isn't significantly better than 39. In light of this, I propose two tables. First for 39d as we had before (plus primes 13 and 19 via 39df), and a second table for a comparison on various other mappings: 39 in 2.25.35.11, 39c, 39, and 39d. This will cater to more demands than ever. Those who don't think of 39 as a dual-prime system get their cleaner table, and those who do get their table too.
+:: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
+::: Seems like an okay solution, worth a try. --[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 20:02, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
+: I have no opinion on 39et in particular, but I will agree that "patentness" is a completely arbitrary quality and the procedure of rounding is merely heuristic to get something that usually works. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 19:47, 30 May 2026 (UTC)