Talk:Pajara: Difference between revisions

(5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 11:

:: I think the limit approach makes more sense. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

::: What do you mean by "the limit approach"? [[User:Roeesi|Roeesi]] ([[User talk:Roeesi|talk]]) 09:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

:::: I mean using the ''p''-norm as ''p'' approaches infinity. Alternatively, discarding the bounding intervals and balancing the rest would make sense too. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 15:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC) (last edited [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 15:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC))

::::: Why are least-squares tunings being called "minimax" here? The most consistent tiebreaker should be second largest error (largest error except for 7/5~10/7). [[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 03:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

:::::: That's what the [[Target tuning]] page says, as originally written by [[Gene Ward Smith]]. However, the second-largest error approach gives a much simpler result, and I agree that it should be used instead.

:::::: And it's also Gene who added the original minimax tunings to this page, inconsistently to his own definition.--[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 04:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

::::::: Should we change the minimax page too then? [[User:Roeesi|Roeesi]] ([[User talk:Roeesi|talk]]) 06:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

:::::::: I think we should, but keep Gene's method as a historical note. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

== Unclear/questionable paragraph ==

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 :: I think the limit approach makes more sense. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 08:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
 ::: What do you mean by "the limit approach"? [[User:Roeesi|Roeesi]] ([[User talk:Roeesi|talk]]) 09:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
+:::: I mean using the ''p''-norm as ''p'' approaches infinity. Alternatively, discarding the bounding intervals and balancing the rest would make sense too. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 15:12, 1 March 2026 (UTC) (last edited [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 15:14, 1 March 2026 (UTC))
+::::: Why are least-squares tunings being called "minimax" here? The most consistent tiebreaker should be second largest error (largest error except for 7/5~10/7). [[User:Lériendil|Lériendil]] ([[User talk:Lériendil|talk]]) 03:07, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
+:::::: That's what the [[Target tuning]] page says, as originally written by [[Gene Ward Smith]]. However, the second-largest error approach gives a much simpler result, and I agree that it should be used instead.
+:::::: And it's also Gene who added the original minimax tunings to this page, inconsistently to his own definition.--[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 04:58, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
+::::::: Should we change the minimax page too then? [[User:Roeesi|Roeesi]] ([[User talk:Roeesi|talk]]) 06:04, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
+:::::::: I think we should, but keep Gene's method as a historical note. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:23, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
 == Unclear/questionable paragraph ==