Xenharmonic Wiki:Cross-platform dialogue: Difference between revisions

Line 361:

:::::: Hmm, alright. Technical parts aside (I'll be experimenting with it some time), I personally don't intuitively insist that this badness figure must be constant or increasing on increasingly complex subgroups, but let me relate your concern to the Discord users and see if they can/will fix it.

:::::: -- Flora Canou, 17 Jul 2024 (imported from Facebook)

:the badness measure is only to be taken seriously on p-limit subgroups otherwise its too easy to game. previously i did 'penalize' weird subgroups but its not very satifying to do so arbitrarily. i personally only care about temperaments that are good in common subgroups and i support weird subgroups only bc some people requested it

:as for the comment on e.g. Petrtri, I *do* think it should have a much lower badness than meantone! look at the mapping matrix: its about the same complexity as something like Dicot, yet its errors are all ~0.05 cents! thats amazing honestly! but of course that only really matters if you take the subgroup seriously (i dont)

:as for the other thing about subgroup complexity with the 256/243 example: that's actually a good point, had not noticed this before. I will investigate the cause!

:[[User:Sintel|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel|talk]]) 21:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [copypasta from facebook]

@@ Line 361: / Line 361: @@
 :::::: Hmm, alright. Technical parts aside (I'll be experimenting with it some time), I personally don't intuitively insist that this badness figure must be constant or increasing on increasingly complex subgroups, but let me relate your concern to the Discord users and see if they can/will fix it.
 :::::: -- Flora Canou, 17 Jul 2024 (imported from Facebook)
+:the badness measure is only to be taken seriously on p-limit subgroups otherwise its too easy to game. previously i did 'penalize' weird subgroups but its not very satifying to do so arbitrarily. i personally only care about temperaments that are good in common subgroups and i support weird subgroups only bc some people requested it
+:as for the comment on e.g. Petrtri, I *do* think it should have a much lower badness than meantone! look at the mapping matrix: its about the same complexity as something like Dicot, yet its errors are all ~0.05 cents! thats amazing honestly! but of course that only really matters if you take the subgroup seriously (i dont)
+:as for the other thing about subgroup complexity with the 256/243 example: that's actually a good point, had not noticed this before. I will investigate the cause!
+:[[User:Sintel|Sintel]] ([[User talk:Sintel|talk]]) 21:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [copypasta from facebook]