Talk:PFDO: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

== Possible ways to clarify and expand the article ==

== The formula ==

When I use the formula '''(a/b + 2p * (b-a)/b)1/p''', it does give me reasonable answers, but it gives the answers going in degrees ''down'' the scale, not up the scale.

For example, it tells me that the 7th interval of 12AFDO is 1.417, which is true if you count down from the root, not up. And it tells me the 7th interval of 12IFDO is 1.263, which again is true if you count down from the root instead of up.

If this is intentional, it might be worth mentioning in the article that it gives the scale degrees counting down from the root, not up.

If this is not intentional, and you are intending for the formula to give notes in ''ascending'' order instead, then I think this formula would work:

'''((b-a)/b + 2p * a/b)1/p''' It gives me the answers ascending up the scale rather than descending down.

It might also be worth saying in the article that this formula gives the answer as a frequency, not a pitch. I think most people will figure that out on their own, but just in case, I think it's still worth clarifying.

One other thing is that, because of the "1/P", the formula requires you to divide by zero if you want to calculate an EDO degree, which results in the answer being "undefined". Is that supposed to happen? If so, that's worth warning people about in the article. I feel like that's not supposed to happen and I might be doing something wrong? If I am doing something wrong, it might be worth telling people in the article how to avoid doing whatever dumb thing I did, because I guarantee other people will make the same mistake.

== Divisions of non-octave intervals ==

Is it also possible to generalise this to non-octave intervals? E.g., could you have an AFD3 or IFD3 analogous to an ED3? Could you have an AFD3/2 or IFD3/2 analogous to an ED3/2?

If so, this is definitely worth mentioning as well. Or, if you've already described this in another page, then it's worth linking to that page at the end of this one.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+== Possible ways to clarify and expand the article ==
+== The formula ==
+When I use the formula '''(a/b + 2<sup>p</sup> * (b-a)/b)<sup>1/p</sup>''', it does give me reasonable answers, but it gives the answers going in degrees ''down'' the scale, not up the scale.
+For example, it tells me that the 7th interval of 12AFDO is 1.417, which is true if you count down from the root, not up. And it tells me the 7th interval of 12IFDO is 1.263, which again is true if you count down from the root instead of up.
+If this is intentional, it might be worth mentioning in the article that it gives the scale degrees counting down from the root, not up.
+If this is not intentional, and you are intending for the formula to give notes in ''ascending'' order instead, then I think this formula would work:
+'''((b-a)/b + 2<sup>p</sup> * a/b)<sup>1/p</sup>''' It gives me the answers ascending up the scale rather than descending down.
+It might also be worth saying in the article that this formula gives the answer as a frequency, not a pitch. I think most people will figure that out on their own, but just in case, I think it's still worth clarifying.
+One other thing is that, because of the "1/P", the formula requires you to divide by zero if you want to calculate an EDO degree, which results in the answer being "undefined". Is that supposed to happen? If so, that's worth warning people about in the article. I feel like that's not supposed to happen and I might be doing something wrong? If I am doing something wrong, it might be worth telling people in the article how to avoid doing whatever dumb thing I did, because I guarantee other people will make the same mistake.
+== Divisions of non-octave intervals ==
+Is it also possible to generalise this to non-octave intervals? E.g., could you have an AFD3 or IFD3 analogous to an ED3? Could you have an AFD3/2 or IFD3/2 analogous to an ED3/2?
+If so, this is definitely worth mentioning as well. Or, if you've already described this in another page, then it's worth linking to that page at the end of this one.