496edo: Difference between revisions
Adopt template: Factorization; misc. cleanup |
That "compound scale" is not really a temperament so moving accordingly |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Infobox ET}} | {{Infobox ET}} | ||
{{ | {{ED intro}} | ||
496edo is [[enfactoring|enfactored]] in the 11-limit, with the same tuning as [[248edo]], but the [[patent val]]s differ on the mapping for 13 | == Theory == | ||
496edo is [[enfactoring|enfactored]] in the 11-limit, with the same tuning as [[248edo]], but the [[patent val]]s differ on the mapping for 13. In the 13-limit patent val, it tempers out [[4225/4224]]. | |||
496edo is good with the 2.3.11.19 [[subgroup]]. For higher limits, it has good approximations of [[31/1|31]], [[37/1|37]], and [[47/1|47]]. In the 2.3.11.19 subgroup, it tempers out 131072/131043. | 496edo is good with the 2.3.11.19 [[subgroup]]. For higher limits, it has good approximations of [[31/1|31]], [[37/1|37]], and [[47/1|47]]. In the 2.3.11.19 subgroup, it tempers out 131072/131043. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
=== Subsets and supersets === | === Subsets and supersets === | ||
496 is the 3rd {{w|perfect number}}, factoring into {{factorization|496}}. Its nontrivial divisors are {{EDOs| 2, 4, 8, 16, 31, 62, 124, 248 }}, the most notable being 31. | 496 is the 3rd {{w|perfect number}}, factoring into {{factorization|496}}. Its nontrivial divisors are {{EDOs| 2, 4, 8, 16, 31, 62, 124, 248 }}, the most notable being 31. | ||
== Scales == | |||
Since 496edo is enfactored 248edo, in the 11-limit it can represent a [[compound scale|compound]] of two chains of 11-limit [[bischismic]] temperaments, interlaced. | |||