Talk:Fokker block: Difference between revisions

(11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 53:

: This math in particular makes a couple of logical leaps; these leaps were probably filled better by articles which this one linked to when all of the wiki was more math-focused. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 17:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

: To understand the section about finding the epimorph val, do cofactor expansion on the top row, then realize that the monzos when stripped of (for example) their first coordinate span ALL the intervals which are octave-equivalent to the origin. In the example given, they span 1/22 of all the intervals since the determinant of those three monzos is 22, so 1/22 of all intervals must be octave-equivalent to the origin; thus our rank-1 temperament must map 2/1 to 22 steps. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 17:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

: This page is just bad, it should be rewritten from the ground up. In the meantime, the article on wikipedia is much better. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 18:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:: What do you think of moving the mathematics section to a separate article called ''Mathematical theory of Fokker blocks'', similar to the ''Mathematical theory of regular temperaments'' article, so that we can start over? [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::: Sure, sounds like a decent start. I think the content of this page is actually pretty interesting, but after not having read it for a while it takes me like 20 minutes to even understand all the definitions so I can read through it. I guess for the new page we can literally just follow the Wikipedia outline, or the [https://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/fokkerpb.html original article]. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 19:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::: I agree. We should also attempt to weed out wedgies from the mathematics section, as per Operation Loosen Underpants. -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 22:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

== A fresh start ==

Thanks FloraC for going ahead and making the move. I tried to make a starting point for the new article, following the example given in the Wikipedia article.

There's lots of examples and illustrations to make! We can start by trying to synthesize the original article, Erlich's introduction and the page on Wikipedia (which is surprisingly good actually).

More specifically, what's missing currently is a proper treatment of domes/modes and how to find them.

Following Erlich, I think we should first give a graphical example in 2D that shows how moving the parallelogram gives you different resulting scales.

Later we can move some things back from the old article, like how to find the intervals from the change of basis matrix.

– [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 20:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

== Weak vs strong ==

So-called "weak" Fokker blocks are Fokker blocks. In practice this rarely matters, and you can bring it up when it does. The todo note isn't helpful as it distracts from the articles content.

Why should we bring this up here? It is not discussed on the page for [[constant structure]] either, but it applies very much in the same way.

Another example, when discussing the fact that meantone generates a diatonic scale, nobody really cares that it may produce a scale with negative steps if I were to pick a particularly awful generator tuning. It's just pedantry.

– [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 22:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

: The note's here to warn readers that the page is wrong: the second and third paragraphs in "Theory" are incorrect if we say that weak Fokker blocks are Fokker blocks. If it's not important to talk about strong and weak Fokker blocks on this page, those paragraphs can be deleted. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 02:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:: I don't see why they would be incorrect, you just get a constant structure with out-of-order steps but all the theoretical properties are intact. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 11:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

::: Paragraph 2 currently says "a rank-2 Fokker block has max variety at most 2 (hence is a mos)", which would definitely have to be removed. The discrepancy in paragraph 3 is less egregious, although still not ideal. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 21:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:::: But it is correct! You just get a MOS/constant structure with negative steps, which may be unintuitive or weird, but it's not wrong. E.g. [[glamma]] tempers via the [12 19 27 34] "epimorph", which maps 5/4 to 3 steps and 6/5 to 4 steps, so it's no wonder you get negative steps from it. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 22:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 : This math in particular makes a couple of logical leaps; these leaps were probably filled better by articles which this one linked to when all of the wiki was more math-focused. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 17:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
 : To understand the section about finding the epimorph val, do cofactor expansion on the top row, then realize that the monzos when stripped of (for example) their first coordinate span ALL the intervals which are octave-equivalent to the origin. In the example given, they span 1/22 of all the intervals since the determinant of those three monzos is 22, so 1/22 of all intervals must be octave-equivalent to the origin; thus our rank-1 temperament must map 2/1 to 22 steps. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 17:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
+: This page is just bad, it should be rewritten from the ground up. In the meantime, the article on wikipedia is much better. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 18:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
+:: What do you think of moving the mathematics section to a separate article called ''Mathematical theory of Fokker blocks'', similar to the ''Mathematical theory of regular temperaments'' article, so that we can start over? [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
+::: Sure, sounds like a decent start. I think the content of this page is actually pretty interesting, but after not having read it for a while it takes me like 20 minutes to even understand all the definitions so I can read through it. I guess for the new page we can literally just follow the Wikipedia outline, or the [https://www.huygens-fokker.org/docs/fokkerpb.html original article]. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 19:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
+::: I agree. We should also attempt to weed out wedgies from the mathematics section, as per Operation Loosen Underpants. -- [[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 22:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
+== A fresh start ==
+Thanks FloraC for going ahead and making the move. I tried to make a starting point for the new article, following the example given in the Wikipedia article.
+There's lots of examples and illustrations to make! We can start by trying to synthesize the original article, Erlich's introduction and the page on Wikipedia (which is surprisingly good actually).
+More specifically, what's missing currently is a proper treatment of domes/modes and how to find them.
+Following Erlich, I think we should first give a graphical example in 2D that shows how moving the parallelogram gives you different resulting scales.
+Later we can move some things back from the old article, like how to find the intervals from the change of basis matrix.
+– [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 20:05, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
+== Weak vs strong ==
+So-called "weak" Fokker blocks are Fokker blocks. In practice this rarely matters, and you can bring it up when it does. The todo note isn't helpful as it distracts from the articles content.
+Why should we bring this up here? It is not discussed on the page for [[constant structure]] either, but it applies very much in the same way.
+Another example, when discussing the fact that meantone generates a diatonic scale, nobody really cares that it may produce a scale with negative steps if I were to pick a particularly awful generator tuning. It's just pedantry.
+– [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 22:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
+: The note's here to warn readers that the page is wrong: the second and third paragraphs in "Theory" are incorrect if we say that weak Fokker blocks are Fokker blocks. If it's not important to talk about strong and weak Fokker blocks on this page, those paragraphs can be deleted. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 02:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
+:: I don't see why they would be incorrect, you just get a constant structure with out-of-order steps but all the theoretical properties are intact. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 11:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
+::: Paragraph 2 currently says "a rank-2 Fokker block has max variety at most 2 (hence is a mos)", which would definitely have to be removed. The discrepancy in paragraph 3 is less egregious, although still not ideal. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 21:29, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
+:::: But it is correct! You just get a MOS/constant structure with negative steps, which may be unintuitive or weird, but it's not wrong. E.g. [[glamma]] tempers via the [12 19 27 34] "epimorph", which maps 5/4 to 3 steps and 6/5 to 4 steps, so it's no wonder you get negative steps from it. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 22:04, 30 June 2025 (UTC)