Talk:Arithmetic tuning: Difference between revisions

(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 3:

* ''Arithmetic tuning'' to ''arithmetic-like tuning'';

* ''AFS'' to ''EFS'' (''equal frequency sequence''), and alternatively as I much prefer, ''arithmetic sequence'', in which case ''arithmetic'' means equal frequency;

* ''APS'' to ''EPS'' (''equal pitch sequence''), and alternative as I much prefer, ''equal sequence'', in which case pitch is assumed;

* ''ALS'' to ''ELS'' (''equal length sequence''), and alternatively as I much prefer, ''inverse-arithmetic sequence'', in which case ''inverse-arithmetic'' means equal length.

Line 20:

Line 21:

: EFD was never "reserved" for irrational. It should support either irrational or rational. If that’s not clear in an article, please feel free to correct it or point it out to me. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 16:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

:: Well, that again narrows down to how we use the term ''arithmetic''. Just as I expected, there are [[Wikipedia: Geometric progression|geometric progression]] and [[Wikipedia: Harmonic progression|harmonic progression]] besides arithmetic progression aka sequence. I don't find it very cool to only take arithmetic progression without also taking geometric progression – adapted as ''equal'' here, and harmonic progression – adapted as ''inverse-arithmetic'' here.

:: I guess you have a fair point at least for an alias of those unity divisions. But still, I believe identifiers like "12odo" should be discouraged due to lack of orthogonality. It's either 12ado aka 12efdo or mode 12.

:: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

::: Our approach was to use only "arithmetic", which we took from Shaahin's existing work. "Geometric sequence" and "harmonic sequence" are unnecessary when instead one is specific about the resource being arithmetically sequenced, i.e. frequency, pitch, or length. I suppose as with most of these xenharmonic theory issues, there's as many ways to approach concepts as there are ways to hear music composed with them.

::: Sorry I didn't ask for clarity on this earlier, but I still don't understand what you mean by "orthogonality" here. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

:::: Yes, applying arithmetic sequences on the different scales of measurement is one possible logic. The approach I much prefer is to think of a kind of sequence as ''indicating'' the scale of measurement.

:::: I explained the lack of orthogonality as "one specification is often encompassed by another", and so by having orthogonality our specifications would be minimal and disjoint from each other. Note that this is not abouting deprecating the concepts and the names, only how we specify individual tuning systems.

:::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 19:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

::::: I have made the change re: rational vs. irrational that you explain here.

::::: I note that you posted on Facebook about this idea to change ''AFS'' to ''EFS'' here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/xenwiki/permalink/3341743592758288 As I expected, Paul (with whom I co-designed the naming system which includes AFS) reiterated the same point I made above, which is that "equal sequence" is insufficient to convey the idea of a sequence which iterates by an equal amount, while "arithmetic" captures that idea exactly and succinctly. Mike Battaglia (who was not involved in the creation of this system, by the way) also noted that "EPS" would suggest a sequence of all the same pitch, not a sequence of changing pitches. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 23:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

::::: The conversation about "orthogonal" moved to [[Talk:IDO]]. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 * ''Arithmetic tuning'' to ''arithmetic-like tuning'';
 * ''AFS'' to ''EFS'' (''equal frequency sequence''), and alternatively as I much prefer, ''arithmetic sequence'', in which case ''arithmetic'' means equal frequency;
+* ''APS'' to ''EPS'' (''equal pitch sequence''), and alternative as I much prefer, ''equal sequence'', in which case pitch is assumed;
 * ''ALS'' to ''ELS'' (''equal length sequence''), and alternatively as I much prefer, ''inverse-arithmetic sequence'', in which case ''inverse-arithmetic'' means equal length.
@@ Line 20: / Line 21: @@
 : EFD was never "reserved" for irrational. It should support either irrational or rational. If that’s not clear in an article, please feel free to correct it or point it out to me. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 16:34, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
+:: Well, that again narrows down to how we use the term ''arithmetic''. Just as I expected, there are [[Wikipedia: Geometric progression|geometric progression]] and [[Wikipedia: Harmonic progression|harmonic progression]] besides arithmetic progression aka sequence. I don't find it very cool to only take arithmetic progression without also taking geometric progression – adapted as ''equal'' here, and harmonic progression – adapted as ''inverse-arithmetic'' here.
+:: I guess you have a fair point at least for an alias of those unity divisions. But still, I believe identifiers like "12odo" should be discouraged due to lack of orthogonality. It's either 12ado aka 12efdo or mode 12.
+:: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
+::: Our approach was to use only "arithmetic", which we took from Shaahin's existing work. "Geometric sequence" and "harmonic sequence" are unnecessary when instead one is specific about the resource being arithmetically sequenced, i.e. frequency, pitch, or length. I suppose as with most of these xenharmonic theory issues, there's as many ways to approach concepts as there are ways to hear music composed with them.
+::: Sorry I didn't ask for clarity on this earlier, but I still don't understand what you mean by "orthogonality" here. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
+:::: Yes, applying arithmetic sequences on the different scales of measurement is one possible logic. The approach I much prefer is to think of a kind of sequence as ''indicating'' the scale of measurement.
+:::: I explained the lack of orthogonality as "one specification is often encompassed by another", and so by having orthogonality our specifications would be minimal and disjoint from each other. Note that this is not abouting deprecating the concepts and the names, only how we specify individual tuning systems.
+:::: [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 19:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
+::::: I have made the change re: rational vs. irrational that you explain here.
+::::: I note that you posted on Facebook about this idea to change ''AFS'' to ''EFS'' here: https://www.facebook.com/groups/xenwiki/permalink/3341743592758288 As I expected, Paul (with whom I co-designed the naming system which includes AFS) reiterated the same point I made above, which is that "equal sequence" is insufficient to convey the idea of a sequence which iterates by an equal amount, while "arithmetic" captures that idea exactly and succinctly. Mike Battaglia (who was not involved in the creation of this system, by the way) also noted that "EPS" would suggest a sequence of all the same pitch, not a sequence of changing pitches. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 23:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
+::::: The conversation about "orthogonal" moved to [[Talk:IDO]]. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:58, 1 April 2023 (UTC)