Talk:IFDO: Difference between revisions

Line 39:

::::::: I strongly oppose moving ado to odo and ido to udo. If anything, efdo and eldo would be acceptable. As I said in ''Talk:Arithmetic tuning'', OD and UD shouldn't be used to identify tuning systems. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 05:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

:::::::: Sorry, but I still don't really understand your concern about OD and UD. On the Talk page you mention ([[Talk:Arithmetic tuning]]) you said something about "lack of orthogonality". When I pressed you to explain this idea, you wrote: "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." I'm sorry I dropped that conversational thread, and I'm really sorry about this too, but I ''still'' can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Could you try explaining in another way, please?

:::::::: One thing I'm confused about is that I thought recently on Discord you said you preferred OD and UD over EFD and ELD, though it was on the condition that they be able to apply to divisions of irrational intervals and therefore be non-JI (which I noted was an unacceptable condition). I only find it slightly less unacceptable to use EFD where OD is possible, because of the implication that an EFD must be non-JI. But maybe I'm just a bit lost because there have been so many subtleties to this discussion, and it has been fragmented in so many places, and it's taken place relatively slowly over the course of many years, so it's hard for me to keep everything straight. I have probably accidentally said inconsistent things here or there, so I sincerely apologize if you find that I wasted your time or confused you due to something like that.

:::::::: Oh, but I did figure out what you meant by a "sequence division" in the discussion above. I think my confusion arose because we're using "sequence" in two different ways. The system I designed with Paul and Billy uses sequence as opposed to a division, i.e. open-ended as opposed to periodic. But you're using sequence as in arithmetic sequence, geometric sequence, harmonic sequence, etc. (which are closely related to arithmetic mean, geometric mean, harmonic mean, etc.) Sorry I didn't understand that immediately. So, I propose that since in your context, we can use "progression" as an exact synonym, we stick to using "progression" for that context, to avoid further miscommunication. Hopefully that works for you, too. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 23:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 39: / Line 39: @@
 ::::::: I strongly oppose moving ado to odo and ido to udo. If anything, efdo and eldo would be acceptable. As I said in ''Talk:Arithmetic tuning'', OD and UD shouldn't be used to identify tuning systems. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 05:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
+:::::::: Sorry, but I still don't really understand your concern about OD and UD. On the Talk page you mention ([[Talk:Arithmetic tuning]]) you said something about "lack of orthogonality". When I pressed you to explain this idea, you wrote: "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." I'm sorry I dropped that conversational thread, and I'm really sorry about this too, but I ''still'' can't figure out what you're trying to say here. Could you try explaining in another way, please?
+:::::::: One thing I'm confused about is that I thought recently on Discord you said you preferred OD and UD over EFD and ELD, though it was on the condition that they be able to apply to divisions of irrational intervals and therefore be non-JI (which I noted was an unacceptable condition). I only find it slightly less unacceptable to use EFD where OD is possible, because of the implication that an EFD must be non-JI. But maybe I'm just a bit lost because there have been so many subtleties to this discussion, and it has been fragmented in so many places, and it's taken place relatively slowly over the course of many years, so it's hard for me to keep everything straight. I have probably accidentally said inconsistent things here or there, so I sincerely apologize if you find that I wasted your time or confused you due to something like that.
+:::::::: Oh, but I did figure out what you meant by a "sequence division" in the discussion above. I think my confusion arose because we're using "sequence" in two different ways. The system I designed with Paul and Billy uses sequence as opposed to a division, i.e. open-ended as opposed to periodic. But you're using sequence as in arithmetic sequence, geometric sequence, harmonic sequence, etc. (which are closely related to arithmetic mean, geometric mean, harmonic mean, etc.) Sorry I didn't understand that immediately. So, I propose that since in your context, we can use "progression" as an exact synonym, we stick to using "progression" for that context, to avoid further miscommunication. Hopefully that works for you, too. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 23:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)