Talk:Constrained tuning: Difference between revisions

Line 32:

The way the term "TWE" is being used on this page is not correct. I'm not sure where the confusion is from, but the Tenney-Weil norm is a general norm with two free parameters p and k that interpolate between Wp and Tp. For p=2, then there's one free parameter k, and if k=0 it's TE and if k=1 it's WE. The thing called KE would be the "CWE" tuning, not in general the "CTWE" tuning. It'd be a special case of CTWE with k=1, but of course you don't want to say CTWE = CWE by default. [[User:Mike Battaglia|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia|talk]])

: I did set the default CTWE to ''k'' = 1 in my code cuz in the case of other norms, like the equilateral one where each prime is weighted the same, it's useful to introduce a 30-degree skew like Weil and that needs a term. Calling it "equilateral-Weil-Euclidean" is a possibility and if so, the Tenney-weighted counterpart is automatically "Tenney-Weil". Otherwise I'd always have to say "equilateral-Weil[1]-Euclidean" with the number in the brackets specifying that ''k'' = 1. So what do you think? [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 03:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:39, 19 March 2024 view source Mike Battaglia (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, confirmaccount-notify, emailconfirmed, Interface administrators, Sysops 1,399 edits 2 responses, one to KE and one to CTWE ← Older edit		Revision as of 03:27, 19 March 2024 view source FloraC (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Sysops 24,768 edits →CTWE, CWE, KE, etc: re Newer edit →
Line 32:		Line 32:

	The way the term "TWE" is being used on this page is not correct. I'm not sure where the confusion is from, but the Tenney-Weil norm is a general norm with two free parameters p and k that interpolate between Wp and Tp. For p=2, then there's one free parameter k, and if k=0 it's TE and if k=1 it's WE. The thing called KE would be the "CWE" tuning, not in general the "CTWE" tuning. It'd be a special case of CTWE with k=1, but of course you don't want to say CTWE = CWE by default. [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia\|talk]])		The way the term "TWE" is being used on this page is not correct. I'm not sure where the confusion is from, but the Tenney-Weil norm is a general norm with two free parameters p and k that interpolate between Wp and Tp. For p=2, then there's one free parameter k, and if k=0 it's TE and if k=1 it's WE. The thing called KE would be the "CWE" tuning, not in general the "CTWE" tuning. It'd be a special case of CTWE with k=1, but of course you don't want to say CTWE = CWE by default. [[User:Mike Battaglia\|Mike Battaglia]] ([[User talk:Mike Battaglia\|talk]])

			: I did set the default CTWE to ''k'' = 1 in my code cuz in the case of other norms, like the equilateral one where each prime is weighted the same, it's useful to introduce a 30-degree skew like Weil and that needs a term. Calling it "equilateral-Weil-Euclidean" is a possibility and if so, the Tenney-weighted counterpart is automatically "Tenney-Weil". Otherwise I'd always have to say "equilateral-Weil[1]-Euclidean" with the number in the brackets specifying that ''k'' = 1. So what do you think? [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 03:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)