Talk:218edo: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m added bold to good approximations |
No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Suggested Table Replacement == | == Suggested Table Replacement == | ||
I suggest to replace the table by an expanded version, that not only contains the intervals mentioned in the synopsis but also actual error values (relative in % of the step size and absolute in [[cent]]s): | |||
I suggest to replace the table by an expanded version, that contains the intervals mentioned in the synopsis | |||
{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: right" | {| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align: right" | ||
| Line 114: | Line 113: | ||
|} | |} | ||
The sort function splits combined cells if invoked once. | |||
What do you think about tables like this? | What do you think about tables like this? | ||
--[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) | --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC) | ||
:The problem is that they're incorrect. The match for 9/8 is 38 steps, not 37. 9/4 needs to be able to split in half to exist in patent val. [[User:PiotrGrochowski|PiotrGrochowski]] ([[User talk:PiotrGrochowski|talk]]) 15:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:23, 4 October 2018
Suggested Table Replacement
I suggest to replace the table by an expanded version, that not only contains the intervals mentioned in the synopsis but also actual error values (relative in % of the step size and absolute in cents):
| Interval | Steps | Delta | 218 × log2 Interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| rel (%) | abs (¢) | |||
| 3/2 | 128 | 48 | 2.632 | 127.52182515721204755691508978062 |
| 4/3 | 90 | 90.478174842787952443084910219376 | ||
| 5/4 | 70 | 18 | 0.993 | 70.180324685444991835729635628687 |
| 8/5 | 148 | 147.81967531455500816427036437131 | ||
| 5/3 | 161 | 34 | 1.880 | 160.65849952823294427881454584806 |
| 6/5 | 57 | 57.341500471767055721185454151937 | ||
| 7/4 | 176 | 0 | 0.019 | 176.00337300855769542234931115654 |
| 8/7 | 42 | 41.996626991442304577650688843461 | ||
| 10/9 | 33 | 14 | 0.752 | 33.136674371020896721899456067439 |
| 9/5 | 185 | 184.86332562897910327810054393256 | ||
| 9/8 | 37 | 4 | 0.240 | 37.043650314424095113830179561248 |
| 16/9 | 181 | 180.95634968557590488616982043875 | ||
| 9/7 | 79 | 4 | 0.222 | 79.040277305866399691480868404709 |
| 14/9 | 139 | 138.95972269413360030851913159529 | ||
| 11/8 | 100 | 16 | 0.859 | 100.15609286293080185146114418622 |
| 16/11 | 118 | 117.84390713706919814853885581378 | ||
| 11/10 | 30 | 2 | 0.133 | 29.975768177485810015731508557536 |
| 20/11 | 188 | 188.02423182251418998426849144246 | ||
| 17/16 | 19 | 7 | 0.368 | 19.066899392573990999386390356668 |
| 32/17 | 199 | 198.93310060742600900061360964333 | ||
The sort function splits combined cells if invoked once.
What do you think about tables like this? --Xenwolf (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
- The problem is that they're incorrect. The match for 9/8 is 38 steps, not 37. 9/4 needs to be able to split in half to exist in patent val. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)