Talk:159edo: Difference between revisions

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Inthar (talk | contribs)
mNo edit summary
Aura (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 21: Line 21:


:::According to Scala it's only consistent up to 17-odd limit. It might still be consistent when we add some higher odd numbers, though. [[User:IlL|IlL]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 15:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
:::According to Scala it's only consistent up to 17-odd limit. It might still be consistent when we add some higher odd numbers, though. [[User:IlL|IlL]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 15:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
:::: Let's check it out then... let's try 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 and 31... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 15:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:39, 7 September 2020

Okay... I have a list of the approximate errors in cents for 159edo's approximations of certain prime intervals:

  • 3: -0.068
  • 5: -1.408
  • 7: -2.788
  • 11: -0.374
  • 13: -2.792
  • 17: +0.705
  • 19: -3.173
  • 23: -1.859
  • 29: -3.162
  • 31: +2.134

I'm hoping that someone can make tables for Just Approximation like the ones found on the page for 94edo... --Aura (talk) 07:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Done. FloraC (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! Once we do a lot more exploring of 159edo, I hope to put our findings here. After all, there's no way I'm just letting an EDO as useful as this just languish anymore. --Aura (talk) 13:08, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I have 159edo's patent val for primes up to the 19 limit- 159 252 369 446 550 588 650 675]. How consistent is this EDO when it comes to this group of primes?
According to Scala it's only consistent up to 17-odd limit. It might still be consistent when we add some higher odd numbers, though. IlL (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Let's check it out then... let's try 19, 21, 23, 25, 27, 29 and 31... --Aura (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)