Talk:Optimal patent val: Difference between revisions

(7 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 1:

~~= ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =~~

~~'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''~~

~~----~~

== ~~Laconic family~~ ==

== Badness unit? ==

I don't have a subroutine for computing the optimal patent val and no time to write one now. If anyone has a second, would someone mind working out what it is for laconic temperament, which eliminates 2187/2000? I think it'll be 21p but I'm not sure.

~~Thanks~~

A badness unit (''BU'' is just a placeholder) would help to factor out the factors and we could write ''mBU'' or ''µBU'' instead. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

~~- '''mbattaglia1''' October 18, 2011, 12:55:14 PM UTC-0700~~

== Not a val? ==

~~----~~

~~If added to the optimal patent~~ val ~~page, it would be~~

~~2187/2000: 21edo 5&16 161~~.~~799~~

I've been thinking about this concept. It seems like vals are only intermediary here. The actual results, as evidenced by the tables, are not the patent vals per se, but the EDOs possessing them. So maybe "optimal patently-mapped EDO" would be a clearer name for this object. This would make it clear that it is the val which is patent by one concept, and the EDO which is optimal by an entirely separate concept.

~~with~~ an optimal patent ~~val of 21~~. ~~However~~, ~~it has a badness figure much higher than the other commas listed~~ (~~it really only starts to make sense in the 7-limit.~~)

Separately I am proposing "simple" as an alternative for "patent", so even better would be "optimal simply-mapped EDO", if you agree with the reasons for simple over patent. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 22:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

- '''~~genewardsmith~~''' ~~October 18~~, ~~2011~~, 01:23:~~42 PM~~ UTC~~-0700~~

: From what I know the OPV ''is'' a val. Using edo here is incorrect and may be only for the reason of convenient linking. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

~~----~~

:: Okay. I'll assume you're correct that the core item of interest here is truly a val and therefore that the use of EDOs in the tables is incorrect, and I've corrected that (at least I put a bandage over it, replacing "Optimal patent val" in the "header" with "ET w/ optimal patent val", and changing link text from EDO to ET for consistency). --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 18:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-= ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW =
+{{WSArchiveLink}}
-'''All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.'''
-----
-== Laconic family ==
+== Badness unit? ==
-I don't have a subroutine for computing the optimal patent val and no time to write one now. If anyone has a second, would someone mind working out what it is for laconic temperament, which eliminates 2187/2000? I think it'll be 21p but I'm not sure.
-Thanks
+A badness unit (''BU'' is just a placeholder) would help to factor out the factors and we could write ''mBU'' or ''µBU'' instead. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
-- '''mbattaglia1''' October 18, 2011, 12:55:14 PM UTC-0700
+== Not a val? ==
-----
-If added to the optimal patent val page, it would be
-/2000: 21edo 5&amp;16 161.799
+I've been thinking about this concept. It seems like vals are only intermediary here. The actual results, as evidenced by the tables, are not the patent vals per se, but the EDOs possessing them. So maybe "optimal patently-mapped EDO" would be a clearer name for this object. This would make it clear that it is the val which is patent by one concept, and the EDO which is optimal by an entirely separate concept.
-with an optimal patent val of 21. However, it has a badness figure much higher than the other commas listed (it really only starts to make sense in the 7-limit.)
+Separately I am proposing "simple" as an alternative for "patent", so even better would be "optimal simply-mapped EDO", if you agree with the reasons for simple over patent. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 22:41, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
-- '''genewardsmith''' October 18, 2011, 01:23:42 PM UTC-0700
+: From what I know the OPV ''is'' a val. Using edo here is incorrect and may be only for the reason of convenient linking. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 02:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
-----
+:: Okay. I'll assume you're correct that the core item of interest here is truly a val and therefore that the use of EDOs in the tables is incorrect, and I've corrected that (at least I put a bandage over it, replacing "Optimal patent val" in the "header" with "ET w/ optimal patent val", and changing link text from EDO to ET for consistency). --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 18:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)