Talk:Direct approximation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
To reduce confusion: the ''patent interval'' for an ideal interval is obtained by ''direct mapping''. So these things are not synonymous. You use the word ''patent interval'' to distinguish one interval from alternative renditions of the same ideal interval. Maybe the ''direct mapping'' concept is much more productive and the term ''patent interval'' may be dispensable but the latter is more obvious (to musicians) than the first one. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 08:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC) | To reduce confusion: the ''patent interval'' for an ideal interval is obtained by ''direct mapping''. So these things are not synonymous. You use the word ''patent interval'' to distinguish one interval from alternative renditions of the same ideal interval. Maybe the ''direct mapping'' concept is much more productive and the term ''patent interval'' may be dispensable but the latter is more obvious (to musicians) than the first one. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 08:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
: Thanks. I really was wondering about that, but if that's the case, then "patent interval" really is not a dispensable term because it allows you to distinguish the tempered version of interval like 49/32 obtained by ''direct mapping'' from the tempered version obtained from stacking two tempered 7/4 intervals and octave-reducing. The question is how to distinguish these two tempered versions. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 08:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC) | |||