Talk:Rodan: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "== 13-limit & overcomplex ratios == Imo the 13-limit should be in the main column of the interval table. It's not less accurate than the 11-limit at all and practically no competing extensions exist there. The 17-limit on the other hand is less accurate, so I gave it an extra column. Also I believe those two- or three-digit ratios should not be there when much simpler ones exist (commas & their inverses such as 160/81 should be exempt). Why would one think of 55/48 or 63..." |
Clarify |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== 13-limit & overcomplex ratios == | == 13-limit & overcomplex ratios == | ||
Imo the 13-limit should be in the main column of the interval table. It's not less accurate than the 11-limit at all and practically no competing extensions exist there. The 17-limit on the other hand is less accurate, so I gave it an extra column. Also I believe those two- or three-digit ratios should not be there when much simpler ones exist (commas & their inverses such as 160/81 should be exempt). | Imo the 13-limit should be in the main column of the interval table. It's not less accurate than the 11-limit at all and practically no competing extensions exist there. The 17-limit on the other hand is less accurate, so I gave it an extra column. Also I believe those two- or three-digit ratios should not be there when much simpler ones exist (superparticular commas & their inverses such as 160/81 should be exempt). For the classes where the simplest ratio is complex it may be reasonable e.g. for 50/27 it may be good to have 81/44 and 90/49 for reference. But why would one think of 55/48 or 63/55 when it's clearly 8/7? Those numbers are just noises that dilute the actually important information. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 10:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 10:22, 15 June 2025
13-limit & overcomplex ratios
Imo the 13-limit should be in the main column of the interval table. It's not less accurate than the 11-limit at all and practically no competing extensions exist there. The 17-limit on the other hand is less accurate, so I gave it an extra column. Also I believe those two- or three-digit ratios should not be there when much simpler ones exist (superparticular commas & their inverses such as 160/81 should be exempt). For the classes where the simplest ratio is complex it may be reasonable e.g. for 50/27 it may be good to have 81/44 and 90/49 for reference. But why would one think of 55/48 or 63/55 when it's clearly 8/7? Those numbers are just noises that dilute the actually important information. FloraC (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)