Talk:Sensipent family: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
::: FWIW, IMO there is no unique best extension of sensipent beyond the one from 2.3.5 to 2.3.5.31, that I know of at least. It'd have to not look strange relative to the 2.3.5.31 version if found. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 13:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC) | ::: FWIW, IMO there is no unique best extension of sensipent beyond the one from 2.3.5 to 2.3.5.31, that I know of at least. It'd have to not look strange relative to the 2.3.5.31 version if found. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 13:11, 29 September 2026 (UTC) | ||
:::: Thank you for clarifying. | |||
:::: Tbh I'm okay either way, but the case for making it canon seems slightly stronger than not. My interpretation of the optimal ET sequence is that the big gap after 65 shows the optimum is essentially around 65, and those larger entries are only minor improvements in accuracy thus negligible. The main equal temps supporting 5-limit sensipent are 46, 65, and 84, as well as their sums, 111 and 149. All but 149 support this extension so it seems good enough to me. | |||
:::: Meanwhile, since I believe only the add-11 temps should be at the top, yet you insist whatever is canon should be, I figured: why not making sensible canon so that we can settle this for now? | |||
:::: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:16, 29 September 2026 (UTC) | |||