Talk:POTE tuning: Difference between revisions
Question about projective space |
|||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
:: Just because you can think of it that way doesn't mean you should. Switching to projective space has no benefits when talking about optimization. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 00:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC) | :: Just because you can think of it that way doesn't mean you should. Switching to projective space has no benefits when talking about optimization. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 00:00, 9 July 2025 (UTC) | ||
::: No, it doesn't, does it? That page does look overly mathematical, as I'd expect from its original author, sadly no longer here to defend it. A lot of this wiki is like that and fixing it will certainly be a big task. This argument does, however, make sense from the point of view of geometry and "TE" is a geometric term. It does help to explain (I don't like the term "justify") why "POTE" should follow from "TE". Projective space has good theoretical properties. I noticed a diagram on the front page of this wiki that looks a lot like a projective space plot. --[[User:X31eq|X31eq]] ([[User talk:X31eq|talk]]) 19:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC) | |||
:: Are there any temperaments in particular where you prefer the POTE tuning to the CTE tuning? We can also compare with the tunings from [[Path-based goodness]]. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 19:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC) | :: Are there any temperaments in particular where you prefer the POTE tuning to the CTE tuning? We can also compare with the tunings from [[Path-based goodness]]. --[[User:Hkm|hkm]] ([[User talk:Hkm|talk]]) 19:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC) |