Talk:57edo: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Canonical subgroup for the interval table: Trying to fill in full 31-limit |
Maybe future column of additional ratios of 9, 15, or 25 tending sharp? |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
: I was trying to fill in the automatically generated output (from the reverted <nowiki>{{interval table}}</nowiki> temporary change) to get the full 31-limit (since the automatic output goes all the way to the 31st harmonic, although maybe it would be best to prune out the impractically high primes). We accidentally edit-clashed when I was still filling in missing pieces from the automatic output (I was going to fill in 3/2 and 4/3 but then the edit clash happened). I tried to put back your changes thereafter, except for the deletion of ratios of 9. I was motivated by the previous interval table not actually having any intervals in it at all (and wanted to look at it to see if 57edo could be used in some sort of relative of Orwell temperament); but doing it right takes time and much realizing after the fact of hitting Save that it still needs work (but probably a good idea to Save multiple times anyway, in case something fries). Maybe next time I should put some kind of "Under Construction" temporary heading on it? [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 13:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC) | : I was trying to fill in the automatically generated output (from the reverted <nowiki>{{interval table}}</nowiki> temporary change) to get the full 31-limit (since the automatic output goes all the way to the 31st harmonic, although maybe it would be best to prune out the impractically high primes). We accidentally edit-clashed when I was still filling in missing pieces from the automatic output (I was going to fill in 3/2 and 4/3 but then the edit clash happened). I tried to put back your changes thereafter, except for the deletion of ratios of 9. I was motivated by the previous interval table not actually having any intervals in it at all (and wanted to look at it to see if 57edo could be used in some sort of relative of Orwell temperament); but doing it right takes time and much realizing after the fact of hitting Save that it still needs work (but probably a good idea to Save multiple times anyway, in case something fries). Maybe next time I should put some kind of "Under Construction" temporary heading on it? [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 13:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC) | ||
: . . . Although come to think of it, it might not be a bad idea to add an extra column eventually of additional ratios of 9, 15, or 25 tending sharp (seems to me that the 3rd and 5th harmonics aren't close enough to the midpoint to warrant sharp 3rd or 5th harmonics, when so many of the next higher harmonics are pretty close to just). [[User:Lucius Chiaraviglio|Lucius Chiaraviglio]] ([[User talk:Lucius Chiaraviglio|talk]]) 14:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:26, 2 January 2026
Canonical subgroup for the interval table
Treat this edo as dual-3 dual-5 or plain-3 plain-5? —FloraC (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- I was trying to fill in the automatically generated output (from the reverted {{interval table}} temporary change) to get the full 31-limit (since the automatic output goes all the way to the 31st harmonic, although maybe it would be best to prune out the impractically high primes). We accidentally edit-clashed when I was still filling in missing pieces from the automatic output (I was going to fill in 3/2 and 4/3 but then the edit clash happened). I tried to put back your changes thereafter, except for the deletion of ratios of 9. I was motivated by the previous interval table not actually having any intervals in it at all (and wanted to look at it to see if 57edo could be used in some sort of relative of Orwell temperament); but doing it right takes time and much realizing after the fact of hitting Save that it still needs work (but probably a good idea to Save multiple times anyway, in case something fries). Maybe next time I should put some kind of "Under Construction" temporary heading on it? Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
- . . . Although come to think of it, it might not be a bad idea to add an extra column eventually of additional ratios of 9, 15, or 25 tending sharp (seems to me that the 3rd and 5th harmonics aren't close enough to the midpoint to warrant sharp 3rd or 5th harmonics, when so many of the next higher harmonics are pretty close to just). Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2026 (UTC)