User talk:SAKryukov: Difference between revisions

(124 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 468:

::::::::::::::::::::::: I would not be so sure. :-) What are you talking about? sum/difference frequencies need at least some mode interaction. But such interaction is by definition a non-linearity. The concept of "mode" fundamentally means that they are orthogonal, the subject of the superposition principle. Roughly speaking, modes don't see each other. When you project two laser lights on two different points and the beams pass across each other, none of the beams affect another one. Non-linearity can happen when the media is linear. For example, when the dielectric permittivity somehow depends on the value of the electric field of the wave, the change created by one beam warps the wave distribution of another beam, so it deflects. Normally, non-linearity happens with very high intensities (of anything). And yes, more sophisticated emission on sum/difference frequencies also takes place. Only all of it is non-linearity, again, by the definition. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Monday 2020 December 7, 22:17 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::: I'm talking about talking about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone Combination tones], and also about additional pairs of tones that have a relationship to the logarithmic curve of sound perception akin to that to linear tones, only these other tones are along a decidedly non-linear curve. It would help more to go into an example, I think. Say you have a dyad (two note chord) consisting of frequencies of 440 Hz and 528 Hz. I imagine you know more about the combination tones that can result from this set of frequencies that I do, as well as how the frequencies of the combination tones are related to the actual tones by addition and subtraction, right? Well, Sam says that the linear relationship between the frequencies the actual tones and the combination tones leads to a sort of consonance, but, I'm saying that there are another set of tones related to that set of actual frequencies in a manner that is decidedly non-linear, yet is percieved to be just as consonant. In this case, we see the sum and difference tones resulting from 440 Hz and 528 Hz are 968 Hz and 88 Hz respectively, however, when we check the frequency relationships between all the pitches involved, we see a distinct set of intervals. The frequencies of 528 and 440 Hz form a 6/5 ratio, the frequencies of 528 Hz and 968 Hz form an 11/6 ratio, and the frequencies of 88 Hz and 440 Hz form a 5/1 ratio. If we take these ratios and line them up in such a way as to reflect the pitches involved from lowest to highest, we get a chord, that consists of the following steps 1/1-5/1-6/1-11/1, am I right? Now, if we take the multiplicative inverses of the ratios in the sequence, we get 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11. Now, since we know that the interval between the 5/1 and 6/1 in the chord 1/1-5/1-6/1-11/1, is identical to the interval between the 1/55 and 1/6 in the chord 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11- both being 6/5- and since we now want to find what I'm calling the "contrasum" and "contradifference" tones of 440 Hz and 528 Hz, we can assume that 440 Hz doubles as the 1/6 interval and that 528 Hz doubles as the 1/5 interval. Since multplying 440 by 6 gives you 2640, and since multiplying 528 by 5 also gives you 2640, that means that 2640 Hz is the "contradifference" tone to 440 Hz and 528 Hz. Since 2640 Hz corresponds to the 1/1 in the 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11 chord, we now can solve for the "contrasum" tone in one of several ways- for the sake of simplicity, we'll just divide 2640 by 11 in order to find the frequency of the "contrasum" tone represented in the chord by the ratio of 1/11, and this tone turns out to be 240 Hz. Once you arrange the 2640 Hz frequency and the 240 Hz frequency in a chord together with the original 440 Hz and 528 Hz, you find that the resulting chord is just as consonant as the chord consisting of 88 Hz, 440 Hz, 528 Hz, and 968 Hz- once one takes the direction of chord construction into account. If you keep repeating this proceedure with different frequencies with different intervals, you'll eventually have a better idea as to the nature of the pitch relationships that I'm calling "contralinear". --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::: I'm talking about talking about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone Combination tones], and also about additional pairs of tones that have a relationship to the logarithmic curve of sound perception akin to that of linear tones, only these other tones are along a decidedly non-linear curve. It would help more to go into an example, I think. Say you have a dyad (two note chord) consisting of frequencies of 440 Hz and 528 Hz. I imagine you know more about the combination tones that can result from this set of frequencies that I do, as well as how the frequencies of the combination tones are related to the actual tones by addition and subtraction, right? Well, Sam says that the linear relationship between the frequencies the actual tones and the combination tones leads to a sort of consonance, but, I'm saying that there are another set of tones related to that set of actual frequencies in a manner that is decidedly non-linear, yet is percieved to be just as consonant. In this case, we see the sum and difference tones resulting from 440 Hz and 528 Hz are 968 Hz and 88 Hz respectively, however, when we check the frequency relationships between all the pitches involved, we see a distinct set of intervals. The frequencies of 528 and 440 Hz form a 6/5 ratio, the frequencies of 528 Hz and 968 Hz form an 11/6 ratio, and the frequencies of 88 Hz and 440 Hz form a 5/1 ratio. If we take these ratios and line them up in such a way as to reflect the pitches involved from lowest to highest, we get a chord, that consists of the following steps 1/1-5/1-6/1-11/1, am I right? Now, if we take the multiplicative inverses of the ratios in the sequence, we get 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11. Now, since we know that the interval between the 5/1 and 6/1 in the chord 1/1-5/1-6/1-11/1, is identical to the interval between the 1/55 and 1/6 in the chord 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11- both being 6/5- and since we now want to find what I'm calling the "contrasum" and "contradifference" tones of 440 Hz and 528 Hz, we can assume that 440 Hz doubles as the 1/6 interval and that 528 Hz doubles as the 1/5 interval. Since multplying 440 by 6 gives you 2640, and since multiplying 528 by 5 also gives you 2640, that means that 2640 Hz is the "contradifference" tone to 440 Hz and 528 Hz. Since 2640 Hz corresponds to the 1/1 in the 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11 chord, we now can solve for the "contrasum" tone in one of several ways- for the sake of simplicity, we'll just divide 2640 by 11 in order to find the frequency of the "contrasum" tone represented in the chord by the ratio of 1/11, and this tone turns out to be 240 Hz. Once you arrange the 2640 Hz frequency and the 240 Hz frequency in a chord together with the original 440 Hz and 528 Hz, you find that the resulting chord is just as consonant as the chord consisting of 88 Hz, 440 Hz, 528 Hz, and 968 Hz- once one takes the direction of chord construction into account. If you keep repeating this proceedure with different frequencies with different intervals, you'll eventually have a better idea as to the nature of the pitch relationships that I'm calling "contralinear". --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::: Then please read this Wikipedia article and see that this is a non-linear phenomenon. This is exactly what I explained before and in contradiction with your "on a linear mathematical relationship". I understand that you might mean something different, but then it would mean that you did not respond to my considerations about linearity and diverted the discussion to something else. Either way, you are avoiding the essence of things. In your last message, you again ignore my explanations related to non-linearity and address the mass of the facts. Please understand, nothing is resolved by the mass. In mathematics you refer to, there is only the common notion of linearity, roughly speaking, A * x + B, without higher-power members (other functions can be represented by Lorenz). This simple property leads to the fact that waves don't interact unless they penetrate the non-linear head or other non-linear media. :-) — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 01:20 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: At first, I thought you were talking about something different- you know, the non-linear logarithmic curve of sound perception. I wasn't talking about the physical non-linearity of the system and the particular set of mathematical relationships associated with that, as indeed I'm not a physicist. I have to admit I don't know enough about physics to know some of those specifics, and I'm sorry for not addressing that properly. Indeed I was working with the common notion of "linearity", and, now that I think of it, I suspect Sam was too. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::: First of all, it tells me that we always will be able to solve those communication problems. I also have something for this purpose: tons of patience; and also I'm not afraid of looking too stupid. Okay, will you now look at new Playground section? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 01:47 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::: Come to think of it, I think we actually need to speak to Sam about his [[User:CritDeathX/Sam's Idea Of Consonance|ideas of consonance]], as well as about how to flesh out the idea of "contralinear tones" based on our discussion. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Line 480:

Line 486:

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Well, "concordance" (as mentioned in the harmonic entropy article) is one example. Another example can be derived from the fact that 7/5 is a concordant interval, yet, [[10/7]]- 7/5's more discordant [[octave complement]]- is also considered "consonant", but this consonance is clearly of a different variety from "concordance"- I'd term 10/7's type of consonance "inverse concordance", at least until we can think up a better name. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Oh, and remember what I was talking about when I mentioned "connectivity" before? Basically, "connectivity"- for lack of a better term at the moment- is the type of "consonance" that only exists between a given pitch and ~~members of~~ that pitch's overtone series and undertone series. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Oh, and remember what I was talking about when I mentioned "connectivity" before? Basically, "connectivity"- for lack of a better term at the moment- is the type of "consonance" that only exists between a given pitch class and other pitch classes that are generated by the first pitch class's overtone series and undertone series- it's the kind of consonance that seems to do the lion's share of the work when it comes to establishing tonality. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yes, I'm having to invent terminology here, but I'm alluding to stuff that I suspect is very much real in some form or fashion. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]])

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: I do have some more detailed prelimiary ideas on "connectivity" in particular on [[User:Aura/Aura's Ideas of Consonance|my page concerning my ideas of consonance]]. What's perhaps more noteworthy is that I think I have an idea for how to isolate connectivity mathematically- albiet expressed in some rather unsophisticated terms. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::: I think I know one of the problems we're having- the fact is that differing fields of study use the same words in different ways and with different meanings. That might be contributing to our communication issues just between the two of us. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Line 507:

Line 517:

:::::: Ah. That makes sense. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

== Microtonal Playground (Part 1) ==

Okay, the application already works, and I already filled in your paradiatonic scales for the demo.

I will publish it as an experimental product under development really soon, then I plan the completion and fully-fledged publication.

So, here is some questions. First, I happen to know your real name (given + family name), so asking just in case: can I mention it publicly in some document (credits/contributors, help, demo file, article)? Of course, you will know the precise context where it can be mentioned.

Can you take the labor of playing with it and some testing? First of all, it would be good if you check up your own scales, both sound and labels on the keys.

Everything works, I only want a bit more testing and fixes, and expose a bunch of small common things which are already there for other applications: controls of volume, sustain, transposition (unfortunately, only by octave in this case, as there is no a well-defined tone or microtone, as this is not necessarily a EDO — any better idea?), and also the presentation of metadata and help. And then, there must be a recorder. We will be able to play exact same things by sending around a record and a tonal system data file. If you want it now, I'll send you a link, but my plan is to prepare a bit more and put a link on my main xen.wiki page as "Experimental"...

What do you think?

: You do indeed have permission to mention me by name- though we must work out the exact context for these mentionings, as there may be other info that needs to be either suppressed for privacy concerns or included for clarification. As for the testing, I need a link. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:: Please take a look: [[User:SAKryukov#Experimental:_Microtonal_Playground|Experimental: Microtonal Playground]] on my [[User:SAKryukov|main page]]. This section provides some minimal introduction, and the application comes with incomplete but quite sufficient Help.html.

:: Note the link under your name, and the "scale" link before. It it fine? There is no any references to you in the application, but my plan is: enter the name/links in the "user.data" metadata properties, provide viewer for current tonal system metadata, add "Credits" sections to the help. Makes sense? Please, if I make any inappropriate or incorrect reference to your material, let me know as soon as possible. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 20:31 UTC''

::: I actually like most of what I'm seeing in the microtonal playground. The only thing I presently don't like is the current layout of the bottom scale, as 3/2 doesn't appear in that scale where as 4/3 does. Other than that, it is a very interesting thing to play around with, especially since you can create other scales through pressing keys in a diagonal fashion. So far, the information you have presented on your page is accurate. When the page you linked is updated, then we'll discuss how to modify your links, and for that, we need Xenwolf's help, as I forget how to link older versions of pages. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::: Well, thank you. Now, which bottom line? The real bottom row is "Demo", its only purpose to show how to a insert fixed-frequency key, a key with a custom label, a disabled key, and <code>repeat</code>. Don't you say that ''your'' "bottom row" named "Locrian" (actually, second last) is wrong? Sorry that I only roughly tested your scales, done them very quickly. (Did you noticed the ''titles'' on the keys which read "Ionian", "Dorian", ..., "Locrian", "Demo"?) I meant that the rows show have the same scale as ''your'' correspondent scales. Did you double-check that they match? And did you look at the file "user.data" which you could edit (in the same directory)? There is a short explanation on [[User:SAKryukov#Experimental:_Microtonal_Playground|my main page]]. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 23:28 UTC''

::::: I'm talking about the second-to-bottom row, the lowest row with nothing but notes. Sorry for forgetting about all the technical buttons on the bottom. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::: Yes, thank you! It's Locrian. Fixed. Please re-load the page (usually Ctrl+R) and see. It is the only 5th degree with 4/3 instead of 2/3, right? The usual paste bug. Is it all good now? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 23:38 UTC''

::::::: Almost fixed- the fourth degree of the scale is actually 4/3, while the fifth degree of Locrian is actually 64/45- the buttons are in the wrong order. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::: Ah... few sec... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 23:45 UTC''

::::::::: Yes, fixed, looks correct, but... push did not reach the auto-published product site on GitHub, they have a mysterious delay, may appear later today or tomorrow. I reported this problem to them, they did not reproduce it. No matter, I can notify you. Also, you can download the entire product (there are all links on my main page); first, it will be up-to-date, secondly, you can try editing the tonal system and try. However, this is a very simple thing, but I would like you to take a look, maybe provide some critique... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 23:58 UTC''

::::::::: Aha, '''''now''''' the fix is propagated to the site, you can take a look. Thank you for the correction! — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 00:12 UTC''

::::::::: What do you think of my idea of auto-repeated tones? On the example of your scale, you write only the degrees, in your case, 7 of them. Instead of second 1st, you write the special object <code>repeat</code>, for example:

::::::::: <code>[interval(1), interval(9,8), interval(5,4), interval(4,3), interval(3,2), interval(27,16), interval(15,8), repeat],</code> and then the system automatically fills in missing key data to the end of the key row, moving to next octave on each next 1/1...

::::::::: What is <code>interval</code>? Even though for this particular application numbers would suffice, what it returns is not a number! This is a more complicated object; the set of them implements the same very systems of ''regular intervals'', a ''free Abelian group'' used in this part of musical theory. I developed this formalism for wider purposes, such as generator systems and other group theory approaches. This object is semantically similar to Monzo, it is maintained in the factorized form, the group operations are done on the maps of prime factors, and so on, complete operation set. Are you familiar with all that? I would assume you are, and a lot of material on this site assumes the readers can work with such notions. Right? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 00:27 UTC''

:::::::::: I have to admit I don't really know how to program all that well, and I'm only partially familiar with some of the terminology on here- some of the other microtonal music theory is not an area I've gotten to yet as I've only been on this wiki since the end of August myself. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::: Surely, you don't need to know how to ''program'' it, if you are not into it already, but the mathematical aspects, this group theory things are important for your activity, as many aspects are based on it. Right now, I'm into it very much, can clarify many things. This matter is easy to learn, provided the source of knowledge is reasonably good. By the way, I noticed a lot of really bad mistakes in Mike Battaglia's lectures (plain false statements or simply confusions), commented on them, did not get any reply from the author, only [[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] expressed agreement with me. Unfortunately, this entire material has to be replaced. It is referenced from the site's main page and is bad for the site's reputation. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 01:47 UTC''

:::::::::::: @SA: If you'd take the time to write a introduction about group theory in respect to music, at least ''I'' would highly appreciate this. Thanks....and sorry for disturbing --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::: Wait, did you mean "Monzo" or "Gonzo"? I don't know about "Gonzo" but I do know about "Monzo", and yes, I do work with that bit of math by means of my decade-old graphing calculator. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 02:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::: [[Monzo|Monzo]]! Thank you. This is my "favorite" kind of typo, you know. Fixed above.

:::::::::::::: That makes more sense. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Unfortunately, you cannot do any kind of mathematics on a calculator :-). Okay, about those typos, some funny story. I always get into some funny situations. For my very first international conference, I've sent a paper named "Shall we Replace...?" And I made a typo in the very title. It was "Shell we...?". People praised me for the quality of the article text itself, and they fixed the typo in the Proceedings... years after the conference. Someone explained to me, that the editors thought that my title was made with the intent to make some funny wordplay. Probably, someone imagined that by saying "Shell we Replace...?" I implied some kind of software "shell" I proposed to replace with my technology.

::::::::::::: Also, for years I thought that "weather" and "whether" is the same word, one word, and thought it was perfectly reasonable. I thought that the weather is so uncertain that nobody can know whether it can be good or not tomorrow, hence the same word in the language. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 03:07 UTC''

:::::::::::::: For the record, my calculator is a TI-89 Titanium, so it's not just your common desktop calculator. I agree that there's some calculators that your really can't do good math on, but this one you actually can- at least you can get the Monzos of rational intervals with the "factor" function. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::: I did not mean that, about the calculator. Ah, you probably call calculations "math". This calculator still works with numbers, right? But, in a way, mathematics is something opposite to the numbers, even though there is a big theory of numbers in mathematics, and a lot more. Sometimes I say that going in for mathematics is one of the ways to avoid doing any calculations whatsoever. :-) Software and computing science too, by the way... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 03:22 UTC'' 03:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::: So "mathematics" isn't the same as "number crunching". Interesting idea, but I suppose there's merit to that idea after all- especially if it turns out that the formula for deductive logic can be stated as something like A + AN → C with "A" being the additional argument, "AN" being the sum of any and all additional arguments, and "C" being the conclusion (an idea I've had floating around for a while now). --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: Well, it's not just this. I meant that in practice if you do some mathematics, on a personal level you can distance yourself from any kinds of practical calculations. One of the driving forces is the elimination of all kinds of repetitive work and too concrete notions. Even the merit of mathematics is not just the calculation, even though the absolutely concrete solutions of practical problems is the major part of it. First of all, it gives a common language to the sciences. This way, it helps to unite the sciences. Remember, I mentioned "real" theoretical mechanics, as opposed to what engineers usually learn? Here, the popular physical paradigm "same equations => same solutions" works. Say, in Hamiltonian/Lagrangian formalism the objects are not necessarily mechanical objects. Simply put, you can assemble a thingy made of weights, springs, solenoids, resistors and capacitors and analyze it with a single common system of equations, which is totally agnostic to which part of it is "mechanical" and which one is "electrical". And this is exactly the same notion of "theoretical mechanics" relevant to the theory of music. You don't need to classify vibrations into mechanical, acoustical, electrical, or, say, hydrodynamical — they all can be composed in a single instrument, working together and not separated theoretically. I noticed some usual fallacy in some musical theorist I knew: they often consider the human ear as something separate from the musical instruments, a pure receptor device. But the correct approach is to consider the ear as the same kind of system as any musical instrument — working together. Well, I also know people who do understand that. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 05:08 UTC''

::::::::::::::::: Excuse me, I still don't know: do you confirm that after my last fix your 7 scales are put correctly in the Microtonal Playground? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 05:18 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::: Yes. The 64/45 interval is a diminished fifth, and Locrian actually does have this kind of fifth. A 64/45 diminished fifth doesn't operate in the exact same way as a 3/2 perfect fifth when it comes to music- even though there are operational similarities- and this is one reason why many musicians don't seem to know how to handle Locrian mode. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 05:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: So, all seems to be right? — thank you! I knew that Locrian was considered tricky. :-) — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 05:29 UTC''

::::::::::::::::: And may I ask you to avoid separating my paragraphs separated by the indent into separate fragments by your newer comments? I'm trying to support this: if I use two indented paragraphs without separating them by an empty line, I mean to keep them together, so your added comment can come after them, but not in between. Two funny stories about my typos became separated due to this problem, I just moved them back together. Ok? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 05:34 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::: Right then. Some paragraphs seem to be suitable for splitting apart from one another, while others are not. It doesn't help that not every user has the same style in regards to this. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: Thank you for understanding. "Not the same style" could be a problem, but the priority should be given to the author of the original post, as this person knows the original intent better than the author of a secondary comment; I hope you'll agree. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 06:53 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::: I do agree when it comes to the original content rule. However, we should perhaps talk to Xenwolf about how to more reliably distinguish the two types of multiparagraph posts. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::: Ah, when we both post in parallel on the same page, I noticed that my comment sometimes get lost. Maybe I'm just not careful enough... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 05:34 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::: We both make that same mistake to be honest, and I do think Xenwolf will have to teach you the exact procedure for what to do when your text is what gets deleted due to an edit conflict. I may have basically summarized the general essence of that procedure on his page, and it may be true that whether it's my comment that gets lost or your comment that gets lost is kind of up to timing, but truth be told, I imagine that there are other details and nuances that he's better able to fill in- because he's an admin. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::: I'm not sure. If you think we both done some mistakes, can you explain how to avoid it? Maybe your first comment on the topic was correct: this is the simple behavior of the system: earlier post knocks out the uncommitted post when another user is still in an editing state? This is not good enough, but is simple and kind of natural. :-)

::::::::::::::::::: The systems I worked with were on top of the revision control, where the resolutions are fundamental. By the way, do you use any revision control in your work? Believe me, this is heaven. When I started to use them in all cases, all my life went much easier. Even if I have the smallest project, even if the entire project is a pretty short post or a document in a single text file, I create a local revision control repository and work on it. All steps are reversible, you cannot possibly lose anything, you can find traces of your earlier efforts in no time, and so on... It takes absolute minimum of resources, installs and configures in a minute, just brilliant help from a tiny piece of software. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 07:06 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::: Yes, the earlier post does in fact seem to knock out the uncommitted post while the other person is still editing, so there's that. If revision control involves a program I don't have I might not be able to use it- then again, revision control in talk pages doesn't seem to make as much sense as revision control in the actual articles, and you and I both seem to be spectacularly prone to typos, even though you use revision control all the time. Revision control on my end is more likely when I'm attempting to edit another type of document. That said, I do think Xenwolf should walk you through the procedure of preventing the complete loss of those uncommitted posts for good measure, and I asked him about it. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 07:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::: Okay, probably we understand how such posts conflict. Now, "revision control in talk pages doesn't seem to make as much sense as revision control in the actual articles"? No, I think you are not right. 1) In the present situation, there is no difference between articles and talks, so revision control would be equally useful. 2) In better situation, say, on GitHub where wiki is fundamentally integrated, the talk looks "more talkative", much closer to the chat software, which is much more usable: people are not working at the same document. Instead, each post goes in a separate section, everything is automatic, you don't have to do these very annoying indents, and yet it's quite apparent which comment you are commenting. And when people work at the same document, this is just a work at a file, no matter if this is a wiki or any other file, same revision-controlled behavior. Also, there are no special "Talk" pages, which is also very good. Instead, a discussion can be opened on every event, first of all, a commit pushed to the central repository. A commit, release, tag, some action, but not a file. This is very logical: what we discuss? Not a file itself, but rather a decision: adding a bunch of tiles, changing them, a request, and so on. It absolutely cannot prevent any free discussions. Say, you request some approval from members for the decision affecting others? Okay, we discuss it first, then decide together. It is not related to actual permissions, we can use different permission policies, from a very free one to a very strict. Mediawiki is great, simple but just overly generalized, maybe oversimplified: the concept of Talk is no different from an article, so we don't have chat-specific features, so this is not so convenient in first place. Maybe you simply need to look at such systems where wiki is integrated with revision control, then you would have a better feel of it. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 08:03 UTC''

::::::::::::::::::::: And, as you often say, for a record: I do not use any revision control for my talks on this site (more exactly, I do have some repository, but this is more of a TODO collection). If revision control is not well integrated, the trade-off between efforts and the usefulness is not so good. With real articles, the story is totally different: I developed a pretty big publishing system, worked as a contributor for the Microsoft Visual Studio Code (in contrast to bulky Visual Studio, brilliant editor and IDE: open-source, multi-platform, very light weight). I easily adopt any article project to any reasonable requirements, always work on revision control, and almost never use any online editors. But then this approach helps me to push an article to the publication pretty much in a single shot. For a talk with its small posts, it would be way to much bothering... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 08:36 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::: It sounds like we actually have a somewhat similar stance regarding revision control for talks on this site- the only thing is that talk pages on this Wiki are those pages that are specifically designated for host such talks, where as other pages (especially the ones I'm referring to as actual articles) are not. There may not be any difference from a technical standpoint, but I'm more concerned about the designated function of the page when it comes to this. On my end, I have to admit I don't have even a proper repository in most cases, so that's on me. Also, I don't exactly keep track of Mediawiki's technical aspects as I'm not an admin. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::: On another note, the statement I use is "for the record", not "for a record". I've done enough studies on Russian (informal studies of course) to know that the function of words like "a" and "the" in English is accounted for in Russian by the definite and indefinite forms on verbs, with "the" corresponding to the marker on Russian's definite forms while "a" and "an" correspond to the marker on Russian's indefinite forms whenever they actually appear. Yes there's functional differences between words like "a", "an" and "the" and the markers on Russian's definite and indefinite forms- namely that in some cases, such as with Proper nouns, the word "the" isn't always needed, while "a" and "an" are only use for single objects- other functional aspects are quite similar. Just thought you might want to know. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::: Ha! Thank you for the note. What you say is perfectly true. You know, I sometimes participate in discussions over one great Russian Youtube channel devoted to English, have some involvement in linguistics, and understand such issues related to different patterns and lines of thinking in different cultures. You probably know that Russian is very complicated, highly synthetic-inflectional, and lacks articles, but article functions do exist in some strange ways. We discussed a lot of interesting and often very funny things. I'm not sure you correctly understand the expression of "article functions" in Russian. First of all, I don't know what is "indefinite form of nouns", I only understand "indefinite verb", and I think the notion "indefinite" is not even used in Russian. Article function is more typically expressed with an adjective. However, nouns also can play some role. I'll give you only some funny examples. For example, in modern jargon, people often use the moderately rude word "pepper" (or "horseradish", with the jargon use of complicated euphemism origin) meaning simply "male person". In certain contexts, one of this jargon meanings is "a man" as opposed to "the man", that is, some man, no matter who, or unknown one. There are many similar cases. Now, one funny adjective example. One day, my friend and former roommate make my guest laugh by saying in the discussion on some legal matter: "Suppose, you have some abstract wife...". I knew him better, so for me, his manner of expression was natural. Indeed, in some "cultured" communities the adjective "abstract" is used to carry just the function of the indefinite article. :-) — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 19:04 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::: Sorry, I forgot that Russian does the definite-indefinite distinction with verbs rather than nouns, but funny enough, some languages- if I recall correctly- express the definite-indefinite function on nouns rather than verbs. My mistake. Fixed in my above comment. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::: Please, no need to apologize, and thank you! This is just a very interesting topic. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 19:56 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::: I must also point out that for one of my other projects, I'm actually trying to create a language that is descended from English in the same way that Spanish, Italian and French are all descended from Latin. This language is weird in some ways because the parts that decline verbs in this language of mine are prefixes rather than suffixes- oh, and there's a realist future tense for things that are bound to happen as opposed to irrealis future tenses that have distinct deontic, conditional, or epistemic modality. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::: Oh! It sounds so interesting! You know, it was my guess based on some of your comments, that you also take special interest in linguistics. Any more information? Links? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 19:54 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: The majority of the fruits of my labors in this particular arena are not to be found online, and that is for a reason- they are connected to what should eventually be a serialized novel roughly the size of "War and Peace" that I have yet to finish. That said, we can exchange emails about some of the present details of this language- especially since talking in depth about this matter is not a topic that is suitable for this Wiki. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "War and Piece" size? Great, please don't forget to include your chapters on historical philosophy. :-)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Now, about e-mail exchange — this is the right idea. I don't mind at all. Let's do the following: really, let's set aside all further discussions here (except musical/mathematical/software topics potentially interesting to the Xenharmonic readers) and move them in private. More exactly: to start, will you look at [[User:SAKryukov#Profile_and_Contacts|my contact section on my main page]]. I reference two means of indirect mailing: via my site or xen.wiki). You can try both and decide what is more convenient for you. Then we'll have a further choice: to continue in any of these ways, or go further away from any of these sites, which would be even simpler. To do so, you may choose to share some real e-mail address, and then we will have more choices. First, I can send my real e-mail in response. I will ask you to keep it secret and address other people to my [[User:SAKryukov#Profile_and_Contacts|xen.wiki page]]. Also, I can invite you for a chat, which is more convenient than e-mail, but it would be better to use both chat and e-mail, depending on the purpose. Finally, I have a choice of chats I actively use: 1) I can create a channel on my Slack site, it is more convenient and mostly used for my discussions with musicians, 2) Skype, which is much less convenient, 3) I have some settings for an ad-hoc chat. Now, all chat channels I have are non-commercial, but they allow voice and video over IP (but only one facility has screen sharing). I have the applications, but on your side, you don't have to install anything, pure Web browser would suffice. I don't really like using video, but would not mind talking in voice. I really prefer char for small talks. Also, we can only try different channels and then decide. So, what do you think? Will you do it? If you will, the next step is yours. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 20:53 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Truth be told, there are a lot of elements concerning the historical philosophy that I'm keeping secret at this time, though perhaps we can talk about some of them during our discussion. I did go to your contact section on your main page, and I decided to send an email via xen.wiki, and chances are we will likely continue our conversations among personal email exchanges. I do intend to keep things secret as much as possible, but given the nature of technology, and the fact that I'm only now starting to get help on the actual novel from other people, some elements of our conversation may end up on Discord, though we will have to discuss which things we can allow to make their way to Discord and which things we need to keep under wraps. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: For the record, I have no intention of sharing your real email with other people, so no need to worry about that. It's other things that I'm concerned about keeping secret on my end. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I do understand it, no worries at all; I mentioned it just for keeping things proper. So, will you write to me? If you share your real e-mail in any of your communications, I'll surely keep it secret, naturally. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 21:16 UTC''

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Frankly, as you could have noticed, I mentioned historical philosophy only to make a humorous reference to L. Tolstoy. (At school, many children make fun of Tolstoy, because these chapters are enormously big, so many consider them as inappropriate, but I've read them very carefully even at that time.) At the same time, somehow I'm not too surprised that you have something real on this topic. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 21:23 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I attempted to write to you by means of xen.wiki soon after I mentioned us emailing one another. However, I'm now wondering if that email went through. You may need to check your email's files for junk, as the email I sent could have ended up there for some weird reason. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Not to worry, your message arrived just as expected, thank you. Now, do you want to go further and share your e-mail, or I can send a message in the same way first, share my e-mail, so we can communicate independently from this site, more conveniently? — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 21:50 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Finally! I was wondering when it would. I think it would be better for you to respond to my message. Given my experience exchanging emails with Xenwolf, I think it best that you actually respond to the message I sent. Hopefully from there, I can respond and give you my actual email. If not, we'll try another means of exchanging emails. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Done. Please give me the confirmation here, just for this first time. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 22:25 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I got your message, and I've sent a reply. We should be good from there. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yes, everything looks fine. Thank you. You got my reply; no need to send confirmations anymore.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I got a pleasant surprise: I tried to explain the pretty nasty Wiki styling bug with external links (at least for Vector I use), and Xenwolf kept saying that everything is fine, there was nothing to fix. But recently I found that the bug is fixed by someone. It feels nice! — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 23:46 UTC''

:::::::::::::::::::::::::: I do however think I should mention that "Folly of a Drunk" sprang out of an early draft of one particular scene in my serialized novel, as do a number of my non-microtonal songs. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yes, interesting. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 20:27 UTC''

::::::::: Also, only today I faced the problem with sound degraded with time, don't know how to reproduce; this problem was never exposed with the rest of the applications based on the same synthesis engine. That problem may take time... — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 00:01 UTC''

:::::::::: I've noticed it too honestly. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::::: Thank you for telling me. Okay, it's better to have the problem exposed than having wanna-be fine operation with a time bomb inside. This is troublesome, but I should fix it. For the pre-production, it is acceptable to expose the problem to the public. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Wednesday 2020 December 9, 01:38 UTC''

::: I should also mention that the current link to my user page may eventually need to be changed to link to another page on this wiki- namely a page with my real name detailing what I'm known for in the future. However, that day has not come yet- this is just something we may need to keep on the radar for the future. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

:::: I remember that. But this is the ideology of Wiki: as everyone can edit everything, if you change your URL and know someone references it, you can go to this person's page and fix it. I would invite you to do so when you change your URL. If you don't want to change it by yourself, just notify me. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2020 December 8, 23:28 UTC''

: If you link to or cite my pages here on this wiki, we also need to take stock of the fact that the content of these pages is liable to change in the future. Sorry I didn't say this right the first time. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

=== 4.9.5 ===

V. 4.9.5: Added mechanism of customization of user's tonal system in a separate file, refined user's error reporting.

The customization is shown on the sample [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/tree/master/docs/playground/custom-demo playground/custom-demo].

This is how customization works:

The user creates a new copy of the file [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/blob/master/docs/playground/user.data user.data] in some separate location. The application can start with this file if it is specified in the Web browser ''address line'' as a query parameter, for example:

<code>...playground/index.html?custom-demo/customized.user.data</code>

The path should be relative to “...playground/index.html”.

For simplification, this address line could be placed in another custom file, an HTML file, such as the demo file “index.html” in [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/tree/master/docs/playground/custom-demo playground/custom-demo]. In this case, the application can be started with the custom tonal system data in one click.

Customization cannot work in [https://SAKryukov.GitHub.io/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/playground live demo]. Instead, the entire project should be [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard downloaded]. See the green button entitled “Code”. In the downloaded code, we only need its sub-directory “docs”, everything else can be deleted. (The weird directory name “docs” is related to the GitHub naming requirements for the content served by a product's Web site used for [https://SAKryukov.GitHub.io/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/playground live demo]. In fact, all the production code is in this directory).

== Keyboards based on the designs by Kite Giedraitis ==

[[User talk:TallKite#Your tonal system on my microtonal platform|The discussion on this topic]] shall be moved to a separate [[User talk:SAKryukov/Keyboards based on the designs by Kite Giedraitis|sub-page]]

== Reduce comma tables on EDO pages ==

Please have a look at [[Xenharmonic Wiki: Things to do #Comma tables in EDO_pages]]. Thanks --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

: Looking... — thank you. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Tuesday 2021 January 12, 21:23 UTC''

== Microtonal Playground (Part 2) ==

Hey, SA, it seems that the Microtonal playground has one problem, at least in the 12-edo version. The "B" in the Mixolydian row should be renamed "B-Flat" to match the other instances of that same note in other rows. Sorry about this. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

: Thank you, that's correct. Fixed. — [[User:SAKryukov|SA]], ''Saturday 2021 February 20, 17:05 UTC''

@@ Line 468: / Line 468: @@
 ::::::::::::::::::::::: I would not be so sure. :-) What are you talking about? sum/difference frequencies need at least some mode interaction. But such interaction is by definition a non-linearity. The concept of "mode" fundamentally means that they are orthogonal, the subject of the superposition principle. Roughly speaking, modes don't see each other. When you project two laser lights on two different points and the beams pass across each other, none of the beams affect another one. Non-linearity can happen when the media is linear. For example, when the dielectric permittivity somehow depends on the value of the electric field of the wave, the change created by one beam warps the wave distribution of another beam, so it deflects. Normally, non-linearity happens with very high intensities (of anything). And yes, more sophisticated emission on sum/difference frequencies also takes place. Only all of it is non-linearity, again, by the definition. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Monday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;7,&nbsp;22:17&nbsp;UTC''
-:::::::::::::::::::::::: I'm talking about talking about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone Combination tones], and also about additional pairs of tones that have a relationship to the logarithmic curve of sound perception akin to that to linear tones, only these other tones are along a decidedly non-linear curve.  It would help more to go into an example, I think.  Say you have a dyad (two note chord) consisting of frequencies of 440 Hz and 528 Hz.  I imagine you know more about the combination tones that can result from this set of frequencies that I do, as well as how the frequencies of the combination tones are related to the actual tones by addition and subtraction, right?  Well, Sam says that the linear relationship between the frequencies the actual tones and the combination tones leads to a sort of consonance, but, I'm saying that there are another set of tones related to that set of actual frequencies in a manner that is decidedly non-linear, yet is percieved to be just as consonant.  In this case, we see the sum and difference tones resulting from 440 Hz and 528 Hz are 968 Hz and 88 Hz respectively, however, when we check the frequency relationships between all the pitches involved, we see a distinct set of intervals.  The frequencies of 528 and 440 Hz form a 6/5 ratio, the frequencies of 528 Hz and 968 Hz form an 11/6 ratio, and the frequencies of 88 Hz and 440 Hz form a 5/1 ratio.  If we take these ratios and line them up in such a way as to reflect the pitches involved from lowest to highest, we get a chord, that consists of the following steps 1/1-5/1-6/1-11/1, am I right?  Now, if we take the multiplicative inverses of the ratios in the sequence, we get 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11.  Now, since we know that the interval between the 5/1 and 6/1 in the chord 1/1-5/1-6/1-11/1, is identical to the interval between the 1/55 and 1/6 in the chord 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11- both being 6/5- and since we now want to find what I'm calling the "contrasum" and "contradifference" tones of 440 Hz and 528 Hz, we can assume that 440 Hz doubles as the 1/6 interval and that 528 Hz doubles as the 1/5 interval.  Since multplying 440 by 6 gives you 2640, and since multiplying 528 by 5 also gives you 2640, that means that 2640 Hz is the "contradifference" tone to 440 Hz and 528 Hz.  Since 2640 Hz corresponds to the 1/1 in the 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11 chord, we now can solve for the "contrasum" tone in one of several ways- for the sake of simplicity, we'll just divide 2640 by 11 in order to find the frequency of the "contrasum" tone represented in the chord by the ratio of 1/11, and this tone turns out to be 240 Hz.  Once you arrange the 2640 Hz frequency and the 240 Hz frequency in a chord together with the original 440 Hz and 528 Hz, you find that the resulting chord is just as consonant as the chord consisting of 88 Hz, 440 Hz, 528 Hz, and 968 Hz- once one takes the direction of chord construction into account.  If you keep repeating this proceedure with different frequencies with different intervals, you'll eventually have a better idea as to the nature of the pitch relationships that I'm calling "contralinear". --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::::::::::: I'm talking about talking about [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combination_tone Combination tones], and also about additional pairs of tones that have a relationship to the logarithmic curve of sound perception akin to that of linear tones, only these other tones are along a decidedly non-linear curve.  It would help more to go into an example, I think.  Say you have a dyad (two note chord) consisting of frequencies of 440 Hz and 528 Hz.  I imagine you know more about the combination tones that can result from this set of frequencies that I do, as well as how the frequencies of the combination tones are related to the actual tones by addition and subtraction, right?  Well, Sam says that the linear relationship between the frequencies the actual tones and the combination tones leads to a sort of consonance, but, I'm saying that there are another set of tones related to that set of actual frequencies in a manner that is decidedly non-linear, yet is percieved to be just as consonant.  In this case, we see the sum and difference tones resulting from 440 Hz and 528 Hz are 968 Hz and 88 Hz respectively, however, when we check the frequency relationships between all the pitches involved, we see a distinct set of intervals.  The frequencies of 528 and 440 Hz form a 6/5 ratio, the frequencies of 528 Hz and 968 Hz form an 11/6 ratio, and the frequencies of 88 Hz and 440 Hz form a 5/1 ratio.  If we take these ratios and line them up in such a way as to reflect the pitches involved from lowest to highest, we get a chord, that consists of the following steps 1/1-5/1-6/1-11/1, am I right?  Now, if we take the multiplicative inverses of the ratios in the sequence, we get 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11.  Now, since we know that the interval between the 5/1 and 6/1 in the chord 1/1-5/1-6/1-11/1, is identical to the interval between the 1/55 and 1/6 in the chord 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11- both being 6/5- and since we now want to find what I'm calling the "contrasum" and "contradifference" tones of 440 Hz and 528 Hz, we can assume that 440 Hz doubles as the 1/6 interval and that 528 Hz doubles as the 1/5 interval.  Since multplying 440 by 6 gives you 2640, and since multiplying 528 by 5 also gives you 2640, that means that 2640 Hz is the "contradifference" tone to 440 Hz and 528 Hz.  Since 2640 Hz corresponds to the 1/1 in the 1/1-1/5-1/6-1/11 chord, we now can solve for the "contrasum" tone in one of several ways- for the sake of simplicity, we'll just divide 2640 by 11 in order to find the frequency of the "contrasum" tone represented in the chord by the ratio of 1/11, and this tone turns out to be 240 Hz.  Once you arrange the 2640 Hz frequency and the 240 Hz frequency in a chord together with the original 440 Hz and 528 Hz, you find that the resulting chord is just as consonant as the chord consisting of 88 Hz, 440 Hz, 528 Hz, and 968 Hz- once one takes the direction of chord construction into account.  If you keep repeating this proceedure with different frequencies with different intervals, you'll eventually have a better idea as to the nature of the pitch relationships that I'm calling "contralinear". --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::: Then please read this Wikipedia article and see that this is a non-linear phenomenon. This is exactly what I explained before and in contradiction with your "on a linear mathematical relationship". I understand that you might mean something different, but then it would mean that you did not respond to my considerations about linearity and diverted the discussion to something else. Either way, you are avoiding the essence of things. In your last message, you again ignore my explanations related to non-linearity and address the mass of the facts. Please understand, nothing is resolved by the mass. In mathematics you refer to, there is only the common notion of linearity, roughly speaking, A * x + B, without higher-power members (other functions can be represented by Lorenz). This simple property leads to the fact that waves don't interact unless they penetrate the non-linear head or other non-linear media. :-) &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;01:20&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::: At first, I thought you were talking about something different- you know, the non-linear logarithmic curve of sound perception.  I wasn't talking about the physical non-linearity of the system and the particular set of mathematical relationships associated with that, as indeed I'm not a physicist.  I have to admit I don't know enough about physics to know some of those specifics, and I'm sorry for not addressing that properly.  Indeed I was working with the common notion of "linearity", and, now that I think of it, I suspect Sam was too. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::: First of all, it tells me that we always will be able to solve those communication problems. I also have something for this purpose: tons of patience; and also I'm not afraid of looking too stupid. Okay, will you now look at new Playground section? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;01:47&nbsp;UTC''
 :::::::::::::::::::::: Come to think of it, I think we actually need to speak to Sam about his [[User:CritDeathX/Sam's Idea Of Consonance|ideas of consonance]], as well as about how to flesh out the idea of "contralinear tones" based on our discussion. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@@ Line 480: / Line 486: @@
 :::::::::::::::::::::::::: Well, "concordance" (as mentioned in the harmonic entropy article) is one example.  Another example can be derived from the fact that 7/5 is a concordant interval, yet, [[10/7]]- 7/5's more discordant [[octave complement]]- is also considered "consonant", but this consonance is clearly of a different variety from "concordance"- I'd term 10/7's type of consonance "inverse concordance", at least until we can think up a better name. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Oh, and remember what I was talking about when I mentioned "connectivity" before?  Basically, "connectivity"- for lack of a better term at the moment- is the type of "consonance" that only exists between a given pitch and members of that pitch's overtone series and undertone series. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Oh, and remember what I was talking about when I mentioned "connectivity" before?  Basically, "connectivity"- for lack of a better term at the moment- is the type of "consonance" that only exists between a given pitch class and other pitch classes that are generated by the first pitch class's overtone series and undertone series- it's the kind of consonance that seems to do the lion's share of the work when it comes to establishing tonality. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 00:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yes, I'm having to invent terminology here, but I'm alluding to stuff that I suspect is very much real in some form or fashion. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]])
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::: I do have some more detailed prelimiary ideas on "connectivity" in particular on [[User:Aura/Aura's Ideas of Consonance|my page concerning my ideas of consonance]].  What's perhaps more noteworthy is that I think I have an idea for how to isolate connectivity mathematically- albiet expressed in some rather unsophisticated terms. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 :::::::::::::::::::::::: I think I know one of the problems we're having- the fact is that differing fields of study use the same words in different ways and with different meanings.  That might be contributing to our communication issues just between the two of us. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
@@ Line 507: / Line 517: @@
 :::::: Ah.  That makes sense. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:12, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+== Microtonal Playground (Part 1) ==
+Okay, the application already works, and I already filled in your paradiatonic scales for the demo.
+I will publish it as an experimental product under development really soon, then I plan the completion and fully-fledged publication.
+So, here is some questions. First, I happen to know your real name (given + family name), so asking just in case: can I mention it publicly in some document (credits/contributors, help, demo file, article)? Of course, you will know the precise context where it can be mentioned.
+Can you take the labor of playing with it and some testing? First of all, it would be good if you check up your own scales, both sound and labels on the keys.
+Everything works, I only want a bit more testing and fixes, and expose a bunch of small common things which are already there for other applications: controls of volume, sustain, transposition (unfortunately, only by octave in this case, as there is no a well-defined tone or microtone, as this is not necessarily a EDO — any better idea?), and also the presentation of metadata and help. And then, there must be a recorder. We will be able to play exact same things by sending around a record and a tonal system data file. If you want it now, I'll send you a link, but my plan is to prepare a bit more and put a link on my main xen.wiki page as "Experimental"...
+What do you think?
+: You do indeed have permission to mention me by name- though we must work out the exact context for these mentionings, as there may be other info that needs to be either suppressed for privacy concerns or included for clarification.  As for the testing, I need a link. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:: Please take a look: [[User:SAKryukov#Experimental:_Microtonal_Playground|Experimental: Microtonal Playground]] on my [[User:SAKryukov|main page]]. This section provides some minimal introduction, and the application comes with incomplete but quite sufficient Help.html.
+:: Note the link under your name, and the "scale" link before. It it fine? There is no any references to you in the application, but my plan is: enter the name/links in the "user.data" metadata properties, provide viewer for current tonal system metadata, add "Credits" sections to the help. Makes sense? Please, if I make any inappropriate or incorrect reference to your material, let me know as soon as possible. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;20:31&nbsp;UTC''
+::: I actually like most of what I'm seeing in the microtonal playground.  The only thing I presently don't like is the current layout of the bottom scale, as 3/2 doesn't appear in that scale where as 4/3 does.  Other than that, it is a very interesting thing to play around with, especially since you can create other scales through pressing keys in a diagonal fashion.  So far, the information you have presented on your page is accurate.  When the page you linked is updated, then we'll discuss how to modify your links, and for that, we need Xenwolf's help, as I forget how to link older versions of pages. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::: Well, thank you. Now, which bottom line? The real bottom row is "Demo", its only purpose to show how to a insert fixed-frequency key, a key with a custom label, a disabled key, and <code>repeat</code>. Don't you say that ''your'' "bottom row" named "Locrian" (actually, second last) is wrong? Sorry that I only roughly tested your scales, done them very quickly. (Did you noticed the ''titles'' on the keys which read "Ionian", "Dorian", ..., "Locrian", "Demo"?) I meant that the rows show have the same scale as ''your'' correspondent scales. Did you double-check that they match? And did you look at the file "user.data" which you could edit (in the same directory)? There is a short explanation on [[User:SAKryukov#Experimental:_Microtonal_Playground|my main page]]. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;23:28&nbsp;UTC''
+::::: I'm talking about the second-to-bottom row, the lowest row with nothing but notes.  Sorry for forgetting about all the technical buttons on the bottom. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::: Yes, thank you! It's Locrian. Fixed. Please re-load the page (usually Ctrl+R) and see. It is the only 5th degree with 4/3 instead of 2/3, right? The usual paste bug. Is it all good now? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;23:38&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::: Almost fixed- the fourth degree of the scale is actually 4/3, while the fifth degree of Locrian is actually 64/45- the buttons are in the wrong order. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::: Ah... few sec... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;23:45&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::: Yes, fixed, looks correct, but... push did not reach the auto-published product site on GitHub, they have a mysterious delay, may appear later today or tomorrow. I reported this problem to them, they did not reproduce it. No matter, I can notify you. Also, you can download the entire product (there are all links on my main page); first, it will be up-to-date, secondly, you can try editing the tonal system and try. However, this is a very simple thing, but I would like you to take a look, maybe provide some critique... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;23:58&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::: Aha, '''''now''''' the fix is propagated to the site, you can take a look. Thank you for the correction! &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;00:12&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::: What do you think of my idea of auto-repeated tones? On the example of your scale, you write only the degrees, in your case, 7 of them. Instead of second 1st, you write the special object <code>repeat</code>, for example:
+::::::::: <code>[interval(1), interval(9,8), interval(5,4), interval(4,3), interval(3,2), interval(27,16), interval(15,8), repeat],</code> and then the system automatically fills in missing key data to the end of the key row, moving to next octave on each next 1/1...
+::::::::: What is <code>interval</code>? Even though for this particular application numbers would suffice, what it returns is not a number! This is a more complicated object; the set of them implements the same very systems of ''regular intervals'', a ''free Abelian group'' used in this part of musical theory. I developed this formalism for wider purposes, such as generator systems and other group theory approaches. This object is semantically similar to Monzo, it is maintained in the factorized form, the group operations are done on the maps of prime factors, and so on, complete operation set. Are you familiar with all that? I would assume you are, and a lot of material on this site assumes the readers can work with such notions. Right? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;00:27&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::: I have to admit I don't really know how to program all that well, and I'm only partially familiar with some of the terminology on here- some of the other microtonal music theory is not an area I've gotten to yet as I've only been on this wiki since the end of August myself. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::: Surely, you don't need to know how to ''program'' it, if you are not into it already, but the mathematical aspects, this group theory things are important for your activity, as many aspects are based on it. Right now, I'm into it very much, can clarify many things. This matter is easy to learn, provided the source of knowledge is reasonably good. By the way, I noticed a lot of really bad mistakes in Mike Battaglia's lectures (plain false statements or simply confusions), commented on them, did not get any reply from the author, only [[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] expressed agreement with me. Unfortunately, this entire material has to be replaced. It is referenced from the site's main page and is bad for the site's reputation. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;01:47&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::: @SA: If you'd take the time to write a introduction about group theory in respect to music, at least ''I'' would highly appreciate this. Thanks.<sub>...and sorry for disturbing</sub> --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::: Wait, did you mean "Monzo" or "Gonzo"?  I don't know about "Gonzo" but I do know about "Monzo", and yes, I do work with that bit of math by means of my decade-old graphing calculator. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 02:12, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::: [[Monzo|Monzo]]! Thank you. This is my "favorite" kind of typo, you know. Fixed above.
+:::::::::::::: That makes more sense. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::: Unfortunately, you cannot do any kind of mathematics on a calculator :-). Okay, about those typos, some funny story. I always get into some funny situations. For my very first international conference, I've sent a paper named "Shall we Replace...?" And I made a typo in the very title. It was "Shell we...?". People praised me for the quality of the article text itself, and they fixed the typo in the Proceedings... years after the conference. Someone explained to me, that the editors thought that my title was made with the intent to make some funny wordplay. Probably, someone imagined that by saying "Shell we Replace...?" I implied some kind of software "shell" I proposed to replace with my technology.
+::::::::::::: Also, for years I thought that "weather" and "whether" is the same word, one word, and thought it was perfectly reasonable. I thought that the weather is so uncertain that nobody can know whether it can be good or not tomorrow, hence the same word in the language. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;03:07&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::: For the record, my calculator is a TI-89 Titanium, so it's not just your common desktop calculator.  I agree that there's some calculators that your really can't do good math on, but this one you actually can- at least you can get the Monzos of rational intervals with the "factor" function. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::: I did not mean that, about the calculator. Ah, you probably call calculations "math". This calculator still works with numbers, right? But, in a way, mathematics is something opposite to the numbers, even though there is a big theory of numbers in mathematics, and a lot more. Sometimes I say that going in for mathematics is one of the ways to avoid doing any calculations whatsoever. :-) Software and computing science too, by the way... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;03:22&nbsp;UTC'' 03:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::: So "mathematics" isn't the same as "number crunching".  Interesting idea, but I suppose there's merit to that idea after all- especially if it turns out that the formula for deductive logic can be stated as something like A + A<sub>N</sub> → C with "A" being the additional argument, "A<sub>N</sub>" being the sum of any and all additional arguments, and "C" being the conclusion (an idea I've had floating around for a while now). --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::: Well, it's not just this. I meant that in practice if you do some mathematics, on a personal level you can distance yourself from any kinds of practical calculations. One of the driving forces is the elimination of all kinds of repetitive work and too concrete notions. Even the merit of mathematics is not just the calculation, even though the absolutely concrete solutions of practical problems is the major part of it. First of all, it gives a common language to the sciences. This way, it helps to unite the sciences. Remember, I mentioned "real" theoretical mechanics, as opposed to what engineers usually learn? Here, the popular physical paradigm "same equations => same solutions" works. Say, in Hamiltonian/Lagrangian formalism the objects are not necessarily mechanical objects. Simply put, you can assemble a thingy made of weights, springs, solenoids, resistors and capacitors and analyze it with a single common system of equations, which is totally agnostic to which part of it is "mechanical" and which one is "electrical". And this is exactly the same notion of "theoretical mechanics" relevant to the theory of music. You don't need to classify vibrations into mechanical, acoustical, electrical, or, say, hydrodynamical — they all can be composed in a single instrument, working together and not separated theoretically. I noticed some usual fallacy in some musical theorist I knew: they often consider the human ear as something separate from the musical instruments, a pure receptor device. But the correct approach is to consider the ear as the same kind of system as any musical instrument — working together. Well, I also know people who do understand that. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;05:08&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::: Excuse me, I still don't know: do you confirm that after my last fix your 7 scales are put correctly in the Microtonal Playground? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;05:18&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::: Yes.  The 64/45 interval is a diminished fifth, and Locrian actually does have this kind of fifth.  A 64/45 diminished fifth doesn't operate in the exact same way as a 3/2 perfect fifth when it comes to music- even though there are operational similarities- and this is one reason why many musicians don't seem to know how to handle Locrian mode. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 05:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::: So, all seems to be right? — thank you! I knew that Locrian was considered tricky. :-) &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;05:29&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::: And may I ask you to avoid separating my paragraphs separated by the indent into separate fragments by your newer comments? I'm trying to support this: if I use two indented paragraphs without separating them by an empty line, I mean to keep them together, so your added comment can come after them, but not in between. Two funny stories about my typos became separated due to this problem, I just moved them back together. Ok? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;05:34&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::: Right then.  Some paragraphs seem to be suitable for splitting apart from one another, while others are not.  It doesn't help that not every user has the same style in regards to this. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::: Thank you for understanding. "Not the same style" could be a problem, but the priority should be given to the author of the original post, as this person knows the original intent better than the author of a secondary comment; I hope you'll agree. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;06:53&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::: I do agree when it comes to the original content rule.  However, we should perhaps talk to Xenwolf about how to more reliably distinguish the two types of multiparagraph posts. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::: Ah, when we both post in parallel on the same page, I noticed that my comment sometimes get lost. Maybe I'm just not careful enough... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;05:34&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::: We both make that same mistake to be honest, and I do think Xenwolf will have to teach you the exact procedure for what to do when your text is what gets deleted due to an edit conflict.  I may have basically summarized the general essence of that procedure on his page, and it may be true that whether it's my comment that gets lost or your comment that gets lost is kind of up to timing, but truth be told, I imagine that there are other details and nuances that he's better able to fill in- because he's an admin. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 06:46, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::: I'm not sure. If you think we both done some mistakes, can you explain how to avoid it? Maybe your first comment on the topic was correct: this is the simple behavior of the system: earlier post knocks out the uncommitted post when another user is still in an editing state? This is not good enough, but is simple and kind of natural. :-)
+::::::::::::::::::: The systems I worked with were on top of the revision control, where the resolutions are fundamental. By the way, do you use any revision control in your work? Believe me, this is heaven. When I started to use them in all cases, all my life went much easier. Even if I have the smallest project, even if the entire project is a pretty short post or a document in a single text file, I create a local revision control repository and work on it. All steps are reversible, you cannot possibly lose anything, you can find traces of your earlier efforts in no time, and so on... It takes absolute minimum of resources, installs and configures in a minute, just brilliant help from a tiny piece of software. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;07:06&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::: Yes, the earlier post does in fact seem to knock out the uncommitted post while the other person is still editing, so there's that.  If revision control involves a program I don't have I might not be able to use it- then again, revision control in talk pages doesn't seem to make as much sense as revision control in the actual articles, and you and I both seem to be spectacularly prone to typos, even though you use revision control all the time.  Revision control on my end is more likely when I'm attempting to edit another type of document.  That said, I do think Xenwolf should walk you through the procedure of preventing the complete loss of those uncommitted posts for good measure, and I asked him about it. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 07:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::: Okay, probably we understand how such posts conflict. Now, "revision control in talk pages doesn't seem to make as much sense as revision control in the actual articles"? No, I think you are not right. 1) In the present situation, there is no difference between articles and talks, so revision control would be equally useful. 2) In better situation, say, on GitHub where wiki is fundamentally integrated, the talk looks "more talkative", much closer to the chat software, which is much more usable: people are not working at the same document. Instead, each post goes in a separate section, everything is automatic, you don't have to do these very annoying indents, and yet it's quite apparent which comment you are commenting. And when people work at the same document, this is just a work at a file, no matter if this is a wiki or any other file, same revision-controlled behavior. Also, there are no special "Talk" pages, which is also very good. Instead, a discussion can be opened on every event, first of all, a commit pushed to the central repository. A commit, release, tag, some action, but not a file. This is very logical: what we discuss? Not a file itself, but rather a decision: adding a bunch of tiles, changing them, a request, and so on. It absolutely cannot prevent any free discussions. Say, you request some approval from members for the decision affecting others? Okay, we discuss it first, then decide together. It is not related to actual permissions, we can use different permission policies, from a very free one to a very strict. Mediawiki is great, simple but just overly generalized, maybe oversimplified: the concept of Talk is no different from an article, so we don't have chat-specific features, so this is not so convenient in first place. Maybe you simply need to look at such systems where wiki is integrated with revision control, then you would have a better feel of it. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;08:03&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::::::: And, as you often say, for a record: I do not use any revision control for my talks on this site (more exactly, I do have some repository, but this is more of a TODO collection). If revision control is not well integrated, the trade-off between efforts and the usefulness is not so good. With real articles, the story is totally different: I developed a pretty big publishing system, worked as a contributor for the Microsoft Visual Studio Code (in contrast to bulky Visual Studio, brilliant editor and IDE: open-source, multi-platform, very light weight). I easily adopt any article project to any reasonable requirements, always work on revision control, and almost never use any online editors. But then this approach helps me to push an article to the publication pretty much in a single shot. For a talk with its small posts, it would be way to much bothering... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;08:36&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::: It sounds like we actually have a somewhat similar stance regarding revision control for talks on this site- the only thing is that talk pages on this Wiki are those pages that are specifically designated for host such talks, where as other pages (especially the ones I'm referring to as actual articles) are not.  There may not be any difference from a technical standpoint, but I'm more concerned about the designated function of the page when it comes to this.  On my end, I have to admit I don't have even a proper repository in most cases, so that's on me.  Also, I don't exactly keep track of Mediawiki's technical aspects as I'm not an admin. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::::::::: On another note, the statement I use is "for the record", not "for a record".  I've done enough studies on Russian (informal studies of course) to know that the function of words like "a" and "the" in English is accounted for in Russian by the definite and indefinite forms on verbs, with "the" corresponding to the marker on Russian's definite forms while "a" and "an" correspond to the marker on Russian's indefinite forms whenever they actually appear.  Yes there's functional differences between words like "a", "an" and "the" and the markers on Russian's definite and indefinite forms- namely that in some cases, such as with Proper nouns, the word "the" isn't always needed, while "a" and "an" are only use for single objects- other functional aspects are quite similar.  Just thought you might want to know. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::: Ha! Thank you for the note. What you say is perfectly true. You know, I sometimes participate in discussions over one great Russian Youtube channel devoted to English, have some involvement in linguistics, and understand such issues related to different patterns and lines of thinking in different cultures. You probably know that Russian is very complicated, highly synthetic-inflectional, and lacks articles, but article functions do exist in some strange ways. We discussed a lot of interesting and often very funny things. I'm not sure you correctly understand the expression of "article functions" in Russian. First of all, I don't know what is "indefinite form of nouns", I only understand "indefinite verb", and I think the notion "indefinite" is not even used in Russian. Article function is more typically expressed with an adjective. However, nouns also can play some role. I'll give you only some funny examples. For example, in modern jargon, people  often use the moderately rude word "pepper" (or "horseradish", with the jargon use of complicated euphemism origin) meaning simply "male person". In certain contexts, one of this jargon meanings is "a man" as opposed to "the man", that is, some man, no matter who, or unknown one. There are many similar cases. Now, one funny adjective example. One day, my friend and former roommate make my guest laugh by saying in the discussion on some legal matter: "Suppose, you have some abstract wife...". I knew him better, so for me, his manner of expression was natural. Indeed, in some "cultured" communities the adjective "abstract" is used to carry just the function of the indefinite article. :-) &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;19:04&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::: Sorry, I forgot that Russian does the definite-indefinite distinction with verbs rather than nouns, but funny enough, some languages- if I recall correctly- express the definite-indefinite function on nouns rather than verbs.  My mistake.  Fixed in my above comment. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::: Please, no need to apologize, and thank you! This is just a very interesting topic. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;19:56&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::: I must also point out that for one of my other projects, I'm actually trying to create a language that is descended from English in the same way that Spanish, Italian and French are all descended from Latin.  This language is weird in some ways because the parts that decline verbs in this language of mine are prefixes rather than suffixes- oh, and there's a realist future tense for things that are bound to happen as opposed to irrealis future tenses that have distinct deontic, conditional, or epistemic modality. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::: Oh! It sounds so interesting! You know, it was my guess based on some of your comments, that you also take special interest in linguistics. Any more information? Links? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;19:54&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::: The majority of the fruits of my labors in this particular arena are not to be found online, and that is for a reason- they are connected to what should eventually be a serialized novel roughly the size of "War and Peace" that I have yet to finish.  That said, we can exchange emails about some of the present details of this language- especially since talking in depth about this matter is not a topic that is suitable for this Wiki. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::: "War and Piece" size? Great, please don't forget to include your chapters on historical philosophy. :-)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Now, about e-mail exchange — this is the right idea. I don't mind at all. Let's do the following: really, let's set aside all further discussions here (except musical/mathematical/software topics potentially interesting to the Xenharmonic readers) and move them in private. More exactly: to start, will you look at [[User:SAKryukov#Profile_and_Contacts|my contact section on my main page]]. I reference two means of indirect mailing: via my site or xen.wiki). You can try both and decide what is more convenient for you. Then we'll have a further choice: to continue in any of these ways, or go further away from any of these sites, which would be even simpler. To do so, you may choose to share some real e-mail address, and then we will have more choices. First, I can send my real e-mail in response. I will ask you to keep it secret and address other people to my [[User:SAKryukov#Profile_and_Contacts|xen.wiki page]]. Also, I can invite you for a chat, which is more convenient than e-mail, but it would be better to use both chat and e-mail, depending on the purpose. Finally, I have a choice of chats I actively use: 1) I can create a channel on my Slack site, it is more convenient and mostly used for my discussions with musicians, 2) Skype, which is much less convenient, 3) I have some settings for an ad-hoc chat. Now, all chat channels I have are non-commercial, but they allow voice and video over IP (but only one facility has screen sharing). I have the applications, but on your side, you don't have to install anything, pure Web browser would suffice. I don't really like using video, but would not mind talking in voice. I really prefer char for small talks. Also, we can only try different channels and then decide. So, what do you think? Will you do it? If you will, the next step is yours. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;20:53&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Truth be told, there are a lot of elements concerning the historical philosophy that I'm keeping secret at this time, though perhaps we can talk about some of them during our discussion.  I did go to your contact section on your main page, and I decided to send an email via xen.wiki, and chances are we will likely continue our conversations among personal email exchanges.  I do intend to keep things secret as much as possible, but given the nature of technology, and the fact that I'm only now starting to get help on the actual novel from other people, some elements of our conversation may end up on Discord, though we will have to discuss which things we can allow to make their way to Discord and which things we need to keep under wraps. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::::: For the record, I have no intention of sharing your real email with other people, so no need to worry about that.  It's other things that I'm concerned about keeping secret on my end. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I do understand it, no worries at all; I mentioned it just for keeping things proper. So, will you write to me? If you share your real e-mail in any of your communications, I'll surely keep it secret, naturally. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;21:16&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Frankly, as you could have noticed, I mentioned historical philosophy only to make a humorous reference to L. Tolstoy. (At school, many children make fun of Tolstoy, because these chapters are enormously big, so many consider them as inappropriate, but I've read them very carefully even at that time.) At the same time, somehow I'm not too surprised that you have something real on this topic. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;21:23&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I attempted to write to you by means of xen.wiki soon after I mentioned us emailing one another.  However, I'm now wondering if that email went through. You may need to check your email's files for junk, as the email I sent could have ended up there for some weird reason. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Not to worry, your message arrived just as expected, thank you. Now, do you want to go further and share your e-mail, or I can send a message in the same way first, share my e-mail, so we can communicate independently from this site, more conveniently? &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;21:50&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Finally!  I was wondering when it would.  I think it would be better for you to respond to my message.  Given my experience exchanging emails with Xenwolf, I think it best that you actually respond to the message I sent.  Hopefully from there, I can respond and give you my actual email.  If not, we'll try another means of exchanging emails. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 21:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Done. Please give me the confirmation here, just for this first time. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;22:25&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: I got your message, and I've sent a reply.  We should be good from there. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yes, everything looks fine. Thank you. You got my reply; no need to send confirmations anymore.
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::  I got a pleasant surprise: I tried to explain the pretty nasty Wiki styling bug with external links (at least for Vector I use), and Xenwolf kept saying that everything is fine, there was nothing to fix. But recently I found that the bug is fixed by someone. It feels nice! &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;23:46&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::::::::::::::::::: I do however think I should mention that "Folly of a Drunk" sprang out of an early draft of one particular scene in my serialized novel, as do a number of my non-microtonal songs. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 20:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Yes, interesting. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;20:27&nbsp;UTC''
+::::::::: Also, only today I faced the problem with sound degraded with time, don't know how to reproduce; this problem was never exposed with the rest of the applications based on the same synthesis engine. That problem may take time... &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;00:01&nbsp;UTC''
+:::::::::: I've noticed it too honestly. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
+::::::::::: Thank you for telling me. Okay, it's better to have the problem exposed than having wanna-be fine operation with a time bomb inside. This is troublesome, but I should fix it. For the pre-production, it is acceptable to expose the problem to the public. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Wednesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;9,&nbsp;01:38&nbsp;UTC''
+::: I should also mention that the current link to my user page may eventually need to be changed to link to another page on this wiki- namely a page with my real name detailing what I'm known for in the future.  However, that day has not come yet- this is just something we may need to keep on the radar for the future. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::: I remember that. But this is the ideology of Wiki: as everyone can edit everything, if you change your URL and know someone references it, you can go to this person's page and fix it. I would invite you to do so when you change your URL. If you don't want to change it by yourself, just notify me. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2020&nbsp;December&nbsp;8,&nbsp;23:28&nbsp;UTC''
+: If you link to or cite my pages here on this wiki, we also need to take stock of the fact that the content of these pages is liable to change in the future.  Sorry I didn't say this right the first time. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 01:56, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
+=== 4.9.5 ===
+V.&thinsp;4.9.5: Added mechanism of customization of user's tonal system in a separate file, refined user's error reporting.
+The customization is shown on the sample [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/tree/master/docs/playground/custom-demo playground/custom-demo].
+This is how customization works:
+The user creates a new copy of the file [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/blob/master/docs/playground/user.data user.data] in some separate location. The application can start with this file if it is specified in the Web browser ''address line'' as a query parameter, for example:
+<code>...playground/index.html?custom-demo/customized.user.data</code>
+The path should be relative to “...playground/index.html”.
+For simplification, this address line could be placed in another custom file, an HTML file, such as the demo file “index.html” in  [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/tree/master/docs/playground/custom-demo playground/custom-demo]. In this case, the application can be started with the custom tonal system data in one click.
+Customization cannot work in [https://SAKryukov.GitHub.io/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/playground live demo]. Instead, the entire project should be [https://github.com/SAKryukov/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard downloaded]. See the green button entitled “Code”. In the downloaded code, we only need its sub-directory “docs”, everything else can be deleted. (The weird directory name “docs” is related to the GitHub naming requirements for the content served by a product's Web site used for [https://SAKryukov.GitHub.io/microtonal-chromatic-lattice-keyboard/playground live demo]. In fact, all the production code is in this directory).
+== Keyboards based on the designs by  Kite Giedraitis ==
+[[User talk:TallKite#Your tonal system on my microtonal platform|The discussion on this topic]] shall be moved to a separate [[User talk:SAKryukov/Keyboards based on the designs by Kite Giedraitis|sub-page]]
+== Reduce comma tables on EDO pages ==
+Please have a look at [[Xenharmonic Wiki: Things to do #Comma tables in EDO_pages]]. Thanks --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 09:09, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
+: Looking... — thank you. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Tuesday&nbsp;2021&nbsp;January&nbsp;12,&nbsp;21:23&nbsp;UTC''
+== Microtonal Playground (Part 2) ==
+Hey, SA, it seems that the Microtonal playground has one problem, at least in the 12-edo version.  The "B" in the Mixolydian row should be renamed "B-Flat" to match the other instances of that same note in other rows.  Sorry about this. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 22:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
+: Thank you, that's correct. Fixed. &mdash;&nbsp;[[User:SAKryukov|SA]],&nbsp;''Saturday&nbsp;2021&nbsp;February&nbsp;20,&nbsp;17:05&nbsp;UTC''