Talk:159edo: Difference between revisions

Line 66:

:: Is it me, or can it be said that "Complete Boolean Consistency" means being able to go from the unison through a set of nodes in one p-limit to connect with an interval of a lower p-limit without the relative error reaching above the 50% marker? If so, then "Complete Boolean Consistency" for the 3-limit means being able to connect with the pitch class used as the [[unison]] and [[octave]] a second time after going around a complete set of nodes without the relative error reaching above the 50% marker. If my speculation is correct, then we're talking about a different type of "consistency" than the kind that Flora's talking about. It's like comparing apples and oranges in a way- apples and oranges are both fruit but have a lot of differences between them. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 18:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

:: The consistency is defined on "an interval set S". There's not a rule against prime limit but that doesn't make sense since it simply can't be consistent. I remember reading about an "n-consistent" somewhere, in which 53edo is hundreds-consistent in the 3-limit as you can stack hundreds of 3's without relative error reaching over 50%. That might be what you look for. Somebody in the FB group also proposed another "n-consistent", in which the n is something substituting 50%, similar to relative error. Another fascinating idea is the ''pepper ambiguity'' (forgive me for saving links in talk pages) – its definition is not completely clear to me and I hope to work on it soon. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:15, 7 January 2021 view source Aura (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, emailconfirmed 5,920 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 18:31, 7 January 2021 view source FloraC (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Sysops 18,328 edits →Reverting factually wrong additions: re Newer edit →
Line 66:		Line 66:

	:: Is it me, or can it be said that "Complete Boolean Consistency" means being able to go from the unison through a set of nodes in one p-limit to connect with an interval of a lower p-limit without the relative error reaching above the 50% marker? If so, then "Complete Boolean Consistency" for the 3-limit means being able to connect with the pitch class used as the [[unison]] and [[octave]] a second time after going around a complete set of nodes without the relative error reaching above the 50% marker. If my speculation is correct, then we're talking about a different type of "consistency" than the kind that Flora's talking about. It's like comparing apples and oranges in a way- apples and oranges are both fruit but have a lot of differences between them. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 18:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		:: Is it me, or can it be said that "Complete Boolean Consistency" means being able to go from the unison through a set of nodes in one p-limit to connect with an interval of a lower p-limit without the relative error reaching above the 50% marker? If so, then "Complete Boolean Consistency" for the 3-limit means being able to connect with the pitch class used as the [[unison]] and [[octave]] a second time after going around a complete set of nodes without the relative error reaching above the 50% marker. If my speculation is correct, then we're talking about a different type of "consistency" than the kind that Flora's talking about. It's like comparing apples and oranges in a way- apples and oranges are both fruit but have a lot of differences between them. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 18:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

			:: The consistency is defined on "an interval set S". There's not a rule against prime limit but that doesn't make sense since it simply can't be consistent. I remember reading about an "n-consistent" somewhere, in which 53edo is hundreds-consistent in the 3-limit as you can stack hundreds of 3's without relative error reaching over 50%. That might be what you look for. Somebody in the FB group also proposed another "n-consistent", in which the n is something substituting 50%, similar to relative error. Another fascinating idea is the ''pepper ambiguity'' (forgive me for saving links in talk pages) – its definition is not completely clear to me and I hope to work on it soon. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 18:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)