Talk:270edo: Difference between revisions

Line 13:

::: Surprised you out of all people think it doesn't make sense... Based on the little understanding I have about logflat badness, it makes perfect sense to me. The way I see it: TE logflat badness punishes complexity exponentially, and since higher ranks get comparatively less badness, you get the gravelly and innacurate edo scoring way higher than many other better edos because it's extremely simple and does a "relatively good" job of crudely representing the 13-limit with minimal complexity albeit very high error. Barring the coarse edos, TE logflat badness is a metric that feels stronger than relative error alone. That jump from 270 to 96478 to me says that there is nothing as GOOD for the 13-limit as 270edo, up until insane edos. If it is denoted in absurdly fine edos like 4296, it should be denoted in much coarser - and useful edos. --[[User:Eufalesio|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio|talk]]) 20:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

:::: I know how it works in theory. I still don't think it's a good sequence. Mainly it's hardly informative when you have only five or so entires in the sequence. —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 20:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:19, 12 April 2026 view source Eufalesio (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled 629 edits No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 20:58, 12 April 2026 view source FloraC (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Sysops 24,011 edits Re
Line 13:		Line 13:

	::: Surprised you out of all people think it doesn't make sense... Based on the little understanding I have about logflat badness, it makes perfect sense to me. The way I see it: TE logflat badness punishes complexity exponentially, and since higher ranks get comparatively less badness, you get the gravelly and innacurate edo scoring way higher than many other better edos because it's extremely simple and does a "relatively good" job of crudely representing the 13-limit with minimal complexity albeit very high error. Barring the coarse edos, TE logflat badness is a metric that feels stronger than relative error alone. That jump from 270 to 96478 to me says that there is nothing as GOOD for the 13-limit as 270edo, up until insane edos. If it is denoted in absurdly fine edos like 4296, it should be denoted in much coarser - and useful edos. --[[User:Eufalesio\|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio\|talk]]) 20:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)		::: Surprised you out of all people think it doesn't make sense... Based on the little understanding I have about logflat badness, it makes perfect sense to me. The way I see it: TE logflat badness punishes complexity exponentially, and since higher ranks get comparatively less badness, you get the gravelly and innacurate edo scoring way higher than many other better edos because it's extremely simple and does a "relatively good" job of crudely representing the 13-limit with minimal complexity albeit very high error. Barring the coarse edos, TE logflat badness is a metric that feels stronger than relative error alone. That jump from 270 to 96478 to me says that there is nothing as GOOD for the 13-limit as 270edo, up until insane edos. If it is denoted in absurdly fine edos like 4296, it should be denoted in much coarser - and useful edos. --[[User:Eufalesio\|Eufalesio]] ([[User talk:Eufalesio\|talk]]) 20:19, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

			:::: I know how it works in theory. I still don't think it's a good sequence. Mainly it's hardly informative when you have only five or so entires in the sequence. —[[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 20:58, 12 April 2026 (UTC)