Talk:The Riemann zeta function and tuning: Difference between revisions
m →Reworking page: clarify what i meant about zeta integral being significant (or at least why i think it's significant) |
|||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
:: As for your second point, I don't personally believe integral or gap lists are that meaningful, if only because they depend on the choice of sigma = 1/2. But currently the plan is the leave the main lists as they are right now, so the integral list would be included. Also, the general sharp/flat tendency is taken into account already by taking non-integer peaks, so I do agree that restricting to integers is not that interesting. | :: As for your second point, I don't personally believe integral or gap lists are that meaningful, if only because they depend on the choice of sigma = 1/2. But currently the plan is the leave the main lists as they are right now, so the integral list would be included. Also, the general sharp/flat tendency is taken into account already by taking non-integer peaks, so I do agree that restricting to integers is not that interesting. | ||
:: – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 20:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC) | :: – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 20:08, 14 April 2025 (UTC) | ||
::: Well, to be specific, I didn't say that zeta integral was intended to account for octave-tempering, I said I believed it corresponded to robustness of detuning the octave so that it seems to me ''more reasonable'' to consider the pure-octaves tunings for zeta integral equal temperaments than zeta peak equal temperaments. This can be demonstrated pretty directly by noting that the zeta integer peaks are meaningfully different from the zeta peaks. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 20:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC) | |||