Talk:Superparticular ratio: Difference between revisions
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
Also, the reason I had put this paragraph in the Etymology section at first, instead of the lead section, is that it explains why "delta-1" appears alongside "superparticular" and "epimoric" among the bolded terms at the very beginning (which are very clearly ''alternative terms'' for the same concept). Since delta-N terminology is a generalization of "superparticular", it might make sense to mention it in the Generalization section, with maybe only a quick overview of the various kinds of generalizations in the lead section. Another option that I have started thinking about (and discussed briefly on Discord) is to merge the pages [[Superparticular ratio]] and [[Superpartient ratio]], although I am still hesitant about that because there are several good reasons to keep them separate (different lists of properties, follow the same page structure as Wikipedia, avoid clutter in the lead section, etc.). --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 02:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | Also, the reason I had put this paragraph in the Etymology section at first, instead of the lead section, is that it explains why "delta-1" appears alongside "superparticular" and "epimoric" among the bolded terms at the very beginning (which are very clearly ''alternative terms'' for the same concept). Since delta-N terminology is a generalization of "superparticular", it might make sense to mention it in the Generalization section, with maybe only a quick overview of the various kinds of generalizations in the lead section. Another option that I have started thinking about (and discussed briefly on Discord) is to merge the pages [[Superparticular ratio]] and [[Superpartient ratio]], although I am still hesitant about that because there are several good reasons to keep them separate (different lists of properties, follow the same page structure as Wikipedia, avoid clutter in the lead section, etc.). --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 02:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
:Good point, I'll change replacement to alternative. -[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 03:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | :Good point, I'll change replacement to alternative. -[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 03:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
== Above a part == | |||
I'm by no means an expert in Latin, but doesn't ''superparticular'' mean ''"above a part"'' or ''"the next after a part"''. The ''supering'' is done by 1 and not by 1/n as in ''"above (unity) by one part"''. -[[User:Frostburn|Frostburn]] ([[User talk:Frostburn|talk]]) 12:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
: Yes, the etymology is correct; I know because I'm the one who brought it to the wiki from the work by Thomas Taylor cited in the references. So I don't exactly understand the nature of your confusion, I'm afraid, but perhaps things will be clarified if you review the [[Superparticular ratio#Generalizations|Generalizations]] section of the page. The "part" ''is'' the 1, which is why a super''bi''particular is of the form (n+2)/n. Happy to try to explain further if it's still unclear, and also work to revise the page to avoid any ambiguity or implicitness. I remember this was really confusing and unintuitive and surprising to me when Dave first tried to explain it to me. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 15:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Multiplex ratios == | |||
We might add to superparticular (n+1:n) and superpartient ratios mulitplex ratios (n:1). Examples of multiplex ratios would be the 2/1 octave and 3/1 twelfth. [[User:Mschulter1325|Mschulter1325]] 06:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||
: I think [[Harmonic]] is the page you wanna work on. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 14:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC) | |||