Talk:Schisma: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC) | [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 11:34, 6 August 2025 (UTC) | ||
: I added this because you may find it in some of Helmholtz' writing and it is extremely confusing if you don't know that he is using 887/886 to refer to the schisma. I agree it's weird and I don't really understand why he did that. – [[User:Sintel|Sintel🎏]] ([[User_talk:Sintel|talk]]) 12:41, 6 August 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:41, 6 August 2025
Lemma
Should it better be moved to schisma with 32805/32768 being the redirect? The numbers are hard to memorize, whereas the name is well-established. --Xenwolf (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yes. If 4-digits is the limit for ratio numbers, then this article definitely needs to be moved. --Aura (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
- I'm hesitant as I noticed some (Sagittal notation users in particular) would use the term schisma for a category of commas regarding size, somewhat like diesis. Perhaps there should be a disambiguation. Same for kleisma. FloraC (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
- Good point! Concerning kleisma, I started Talk:Kleisma#Disambiguation. --Xenwolf (talk) 09:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
887/886
> Since it is extremely close to the superparticular ratio 887/886 (2-1 443-1 887), it is used interchangably with this interval.
Doesn't seem notable at all.