Talk:69edo: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Re |
→Inconsistency: Error between EDO interval and just interval is useful |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
: The table should go imo. Edos and edosteps don't need to be named anyway. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC) | : The table should go imo. Edos and edosteps don't need to be named anyway. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC) | ||
:: The table does have a useful idea (even if the particular implementation in this case is buggy), in that it gives the error between the just interval and the EDO interval. This is something that most other interval tables should do, but do not. [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 13:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 13:39, 13 November 2025
|
This page also contains archived Wikispaces discussion. |
Inconsistency
In the proposed names section of the intervals, 7/5 is at 33 steps, while 10/7 is 35, and they sum up to 68 steps , not 69. This needs to be fixed ASAP.--Overthink (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- The table should go imo. Edos and edosteps don't need to be named anyway. FloraC (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
- The table does have a useful idea (even if the particular implementation in this case is buggy), in that it gives the error between the just interval and the EDO interval. This is something that most other interval tables should do, but do not. Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2025 (UTC)