Talk:159edo: Difference between revisions

Line 59:

:::: The error "rate" of a specific prime is the same as its relative error, I suppose. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 17:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

::::: I would say that's a reasonable conclusion, but only in part. I'm saying that the end of the usable portion of the harmonic lattice for a given prime as represented in a given EDO is marked by the error ~~rate~~ being less than 50%- or at least that's my policy on the matter. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

::::: I would say that's a reasonable conclusion, but only in part. I'm saying that the end of the usable portion of the harmonic lattice for a given prime as represented in a given EDO is marked by the relative error being less than 50%- or at least that's my policy on the matter. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

: I, too, am somewhat unsure about this issue. Is it correct that [[consistent|inconsistency/consistency]] is only defined in relation to a specific odd limit? Otherwise it would not be in the Boolean domain. I wished we had another measure for consistency, something that does not depend on an odd limit, but tells how many nodes of a (p-1)-dimensional lattice could be (somehow) reached from the unison. (But unfortunately my mathematical skills are not sufficient to comprehend this "somehow".) --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 17:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

:: I don't know how well my response to Flora manages to solve the problem you just stated, but here's to hoping... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 59: / Line 59: @@
 :::: The error "rate" of a specific prime is the same as its relative error, I suppose. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 17:50, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
-::::: I would say that's a reasonable conclusion, but only in part.  I'm saying that the end of the usable portion of the harmonic lattice for a given prime as represented in a given EDO is marked by the error rate being less than 50%- or at least that's my policy on the matter. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
+::::: I would say that's a reasonable conclusion, but only in part.  I'm saying that the end of the usable portion of the harmonic lattice for a given prime as represented in a given EDO is marked by the relative error being less than 50%- or at least that's my policy on the matter. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 17:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 : I, too, am somewhat unsure about this issue. Is it correct that [[consistent|inconsistency/consistency]] is only defined in relation to a specific odd limit? Otherwise it would not be in the Boolean domain. I wished we had another measure for consistency, something that does not depend on an odd limit, but tells how many nodes of a (p-1)-dimensional lattice could be (somehow) reached from the unison. (But unfortunately my mathematical skills are not sufficient to comprehend this "somehow".) --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 17:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 :: I don't know how well my response to Flora manages to solve the problem you just stated, but here's to hoping... --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)