Talk:Optimal ET sequence: Difference between revisions

(7 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)

Line 17:

::::: I don't think ET is used often for "equal tuning" by the way, I was just noticing the coincidence. Also, I would rather say that ETs ''can be expressed'' as maps, rather than "have" maps, but I might just be playing with words here. Anyway, since optimal GPV sequences enumerate ETs with warts, and since 17c is a shorthand for ⟨17 27 40], it means that including 17c is equivalent to including ⟨17 27 40] in the list. A list of comma bases would essentially serve the same purpose, but we don't choose that form for essentially the same reason we don't write out the maps in full. In any case, that doesn't change that "optimal ET sequence" still looks like the best option to me so far. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 06:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::: Alright, so to recap:

::::::# My initial three suggestions were to change "val" to "ET", to acknowledge explicitly in the name the "unform" / "general patent" aspect, and to also acknowledge explicitly in the name of this list the fact that it is formed by adding the simplest possible ET which improves upon the error of the previous ET. To be clear, these suggestions were made when the feature on temperament pages was called "Val list".

::::::# Flora agreed with the first of my two suggestions and softly disagreed with the other two. She then added a new suggestion that we change "list" to "sequence".

::::::# Between comments on this thread, several things changed. Flora acted on her suggestion to change "list" to "sequence". And despite agreeing with my first suggestion to change "val" to "ET" and softly disagreeing with my second suggestion to add "uniform" / "general patent", she changed "val" to "general patent val" ("GPV"). Also, "optimal" was prefixed to the name, perhaps in some attempt to address my third suggestion re: the decreasing error of these ETs.

::::::# When Dave resurrected this thread, he questioned whether readers will understand "GPV", and pointed out another aspect of these sequences that would perhaps be best to acknowledge explicitly in their name: the fact that this is a sequence of ETs which each [[support]] the given temperament. This comment also involved coaxing us back toward my original suggestion to use "ET" rather than "val"/"map".

::::::# Then, Fredg999 softly disagreed with Dave's suggestion re: supports, but agreed with his repetition of my original suggestion to change "val" to "ET". He also brought up the issue of switching from Gene's 2016 term "generalized patent" (GPV) to Dave's and my 2021 term "uniform", if we are to keep this part of the concept explicit in the name.

::::::# Next, Dave suggested that "optimal" could and should be made to capture ''both'' the "uniform" / "general patent" aspect (my 2nd original suggestion) as well as the error-decreasing aspect (my 3rd original suggestion).

::::::# Finally, Fredg999 agrees with Dave.

:::::: Alright, so now it's back to me. I agree with Dave and Fredg999 that we should change "Optimal GPV sequence" to "Optimal ET sequence". And I'll go even another step further: I think that "optimal" here can and should also be made to further capture a third idea, the one Dave pointed out: that these are ETs which support the given temperament. I think there's simply too much detail to this concept to capture it all explicitly in the name, and "optimal" does a suitable job at encapsulating all three of these ideas.

:::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::: Moved. To be clear, I was thinking about rigorously defining it and back then GPV was indeed used to make the sequence, before the new proposal arrived that the GPV constraint may be assimilated into "optimal". [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

:::: I agree that "supporting" should be explicitly mentioned in any description of the requirements of the ETs in an "optimal ET sequence". [[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 20:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::: Yes, Flora, I should have mentioned, that even back when it was simply called "val list", GPVs / uniform maps were used to make the sequence.

:::::: Dave, I looked into it, and it seems that "supporting" was already explicitly on the page, but Flora has just now improved things by making it link to the article I wrote about the concept.

:::::: Okay. So the page has been moved. Thanks Flora. And thanks Dave and Fredg999 for helping us sort this all out. But work remains. We still have many occurrences of "Optimal GPV sequence" across the wiki. I offer to do the work myself to change every occurrence to "Optimal ET sequence" across the wiki. I will do this over the weekend unless I hear back otherwise from anyone.

:::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 17:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::: Okay, I updated all occurrences. As I went, I standardized them all to use the template, to catch many occurrences of even older names used for this information, and also so that if we ever need to make changes again, that time we can do it in one place. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 20:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

== Sorted by complexity? ==

I think that almost always (perhaps simply always) this error-decreasing constraint results in a list whose member ETs are sorted by increasing complexity. I would be interested to see if this is true, and if so, note it in the article. Does anyone have an idea how to prove this one way or the other? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

: The set of all GPVs can be sorted by complexity and is used here so that a "bigger ET" comes later than a "smaller ET". There's nothing to prove. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

== Can ETs with non-uniform maps ever be optimal? ==

On another discussion thread on this page, the question arose as to whether an ET with a non-uniform map could ever make it into an optimal ET sequence. I wanted to set this question aside on its own topic for further discussion. I agree with Fredg999 and Dave that it is an interesting question, but at this time, I don't have any particular ideas on how to answer it. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

: Hard to answer. Guess it could happen in the higher ranks. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 ::::: I don't think ET is used often for "equal tuning" by the way, I was just noticing the coincidence. Also, I would rather say that ETs ''can be expressed'' as maps, rather than "have" maps, but I might just be playing with words here. Anyway, since optimal GPV sequences enumerate ETs with warts, and since 17c is a shorthand for ⟨17 27 40], it means that including 17c is equivalent to including ⟨17 27 40] in the list. A list of comma bases would essentially serve the same purpose, but we don't choose that form for essentially the same reason we don't write out the maps in full. In any case, that doesn't change that "optimal ET sequence" still looks like the best option to me so far. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 06:51, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::::: Alright, so to recap:
+::::::# My initial three suggestions were to change "val" to "ET", to acknowledge explicitly in the name the "unform" / "general patent" aspect, and to also acknowledge explicitly in the name of this list the fact that it is formed by adding the simplest possible ET which improves upon the error of the previous ET. To be clear, these suggestions were made when the feature on temperament pages was called "Val list".
+::::::# Flora agreed with the first of my two suggestions and softly disagreed with the other two. She then added a new suggestion that we change "list" to "sequence".
+::::::# Between comments on this thread, several things changed. Flora acted on her suggestion to change "list" to "sequence". And despite agreeing with my first suggestion to change "val" to "ET" and softly disagreeing with my second suggestion to add "uniform" / "general patent", she changed "val" to "general patent val" ("GPV"). Also, "optimal" was prefixed to the name, perhaps in some attempt to address my third suggestion re: the decreasing error of these ETs.
+::::::# When Dave resurrected this thread, he questioned whether readers will understand "GPV", and pointed out another aspect of these sequences that would perhaps be best to acknowledge explicitly in their name: the fact that this is a sequence of ETs which each [[support]] the given temperament. This comment also involved coaxing us back toward my original suggestion to use "ET" rather than "val"/"map".
+::::::# Then, Fredg999 softly disagreed with Dave's suggestion re: supports, but agreed with his repetition of my original suggestion to change "val" to "ET". He also brought up the issue of switching from Gene's 2016 term "generalized patent" (GPV) to Dave's and my 2021 term "uniform", if we are to keep this part of the concept explicit in the name.
+::::::# Next, Dave suggested that "optimal" could and should be made to capture ''both'' the "uniform" / "general patent" aspect (my 2nd original suggestion) as well as the error-decreasing aspect (my 3rd original suggestion).
+::::::# Finally, Fredg999 agrees with Dave.
+:::::: Alright, so now it's back to me. I agree with Dave and Fredg999 that we should change "Optimal GPV sequence" to "Optimal ET sequence". And I'll go even another step further: I think that "optimal" here can and should also be made to further capture a third idea, the one Dave pointed out: that these are ETs which support the given temperament. I think there's simply too much detail to this concept to capture it all explicitly in the name, and "optimal" does a suitable job at encapsulating all three of these ideas.
+:::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
+::::::: Moved. To be clear, I was thinking about rigorously defining it and back then GPV was indeed used to make the sequence, before the new proposal arrived that the GPV constraint may be assimilated into "optimal". [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::: I agree that "supporting" should be explicitly mentioned in any description of the requirements of the ETs in an "optimal ET sequence". [[User:Dave Keenan|Dave Keenan]] ([[User talk:Dave Keenan|talk]]) 20:46, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::::: Yes, Flora, I should have mentioned, that even back when it was simply called "val list", GPVs / uniform maps were used to make the sequence.
+:::::: Dave, I looked into it, and it seems that "supporting" was already explicitly on the page, but Flora has just now improved things by making it link to the article I wrote about the concept.
+:::::: Okay. So the page has been moved. Thanks Flora. And thanks Dave and Fredg999 for helping us sort this all out. But work remains. We still have many occurrences of "Optimal GPV sequence" across the wiki. I offer to do the work myself to change every occurrence to "Optimal ET sequence" across the wiki. I will do this over the weekend unless I hear back otherwise from anyone.
+:::::: --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 17:06, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
+:::::: Okay, I updated all occurrences. As I went, I standardized them all to use the template, to catch many occurrences of even older names used for this information, and also so that if we ever need to make changes again, that time we can do it in one place. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 20:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
+== Sorted by complexity? ==
+I think that almost always (perhaps simply always) this error-decreasing constraint results in a list whose member ETs are sorted by increasing complexity. I would be interested to see if this is true, and if so, note it in the article. Does anyone have an idea how to prove this one way or the other? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:12, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
+: The set of all GPVs can be sorted by complexity and is used here so that a "bigger ET" comes later than a "smaller ET". There's nothing to prove. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
+== Can ETs with non-uniform maps ever be optimal? ==
+On another discussion thread on this page, the question arose as to whether an ET with a non-uniform map could ever make it into an optimal ET sequence. I wanted to set this question aside on its own topic for further discussion. I agree with Fredg999 and Dave that it is an interesting question, but at this time, I don't have any particular ideas on how to answer it. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
+: Hard to answer. Guess it could happen in the higher ranks. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)