User talk:Lhearne: Difference between revisions

Line 172:

:: Now that I think about it, the Pentacircle comma (896/891) can also be given a pass for much the same reason as "Q", though in this case, I think I'd prefer a different letter from "L" just in case it turns out that we actually need "large/little" to refer to the Paramajor and Paraminor intervals due to the apotome and the parapotome not being the same size. With this in mind, we need a more creative way of capturing what the pentacircle comma is. Since "W" has been freed up, and since "whopper" and "weeny"- meaning "large" and "small" respectively- both start with "W", and since "W" can also stand for "weird" which is a good way of describing my sense of the way that septimal intervals interact with diatonic intervals, why not take advantage of this? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

::: I'm not sure I like "whopper"/"wheeny", "weird". They don't sound 'serious' enough for me. I also disagree that ambiguity on the generic diatonic interval class of an interval means we don't use it at all as a prefix to a (pythagorean) diatonic interval. If, for example, 7/4 can be both a type of seven and type of six, then we need to be able to notate it as both ideally. Moreover, 7/4 has been considered a type of seventh for hundreds of years and is rather well accepted as a subminor seventh. Do you intend to do away with super and sub as well? Yes, 11/8 is a type of fourth, and that means that 14/11 is a type of fourth, and that clashes with 14/11 being considered instead a type of third, but these sorts of ambiguities are unavoidable when we're trying to use a Pythagorean lattice to get to all of JI. Most people will tell us we shouldn't even bother trying, but I wish they were more encouraging, as an aside...

::: I've left behind M1 and m8 very quickly after suggesting it haha --[[User:Lhearne|Lhearne]] ([[User talk:Lhearne|talk]]) 02:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

== Notation and Well-Ordered Naming Systems ==

@@ Line 172: / Line 172: @@
 :: Now that I think about it, the Pentacircle comma (896/891) can also be given a pass for much the same reason as "Q", though in this case, I think I'd prefer a different letter from "L" just in case it turns out that we actually need "large/little" to refer to the Paramajor and Paraminor intervals due to the apotome and the parapotome not being the same size.  With this in mind, we need a more creative way of capturing what the pentacircle comma is.  Since "W" has been freed up, and since "whopper" and "weeny"- meaning "large" and "small" respectively- both start with "W", and since "W" can also stand for "weird" which is a good way of describing my sense of the way that septimal intervals interact with diatonic intervals, why not take advantage of this? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 23:56, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
+::: I'm not sure I like "whopper"/"wheeny", "weird". They don't sound 'serious' enough for me. I also disagree that ambiguity on the generic diatonic interval class of an interval means we don't use it at all as a prefix to a (pythagorean) diatonic interval. If, for example, 7/4 can be both a type of seven and type of six, then we need to be able to notate it as both ideally. Moreover, 7/4 has been considered a type of seventh for hundreds of years and is rather well accepted as a subminor seventh. Do you intend to do away with super and sub as well? Yes, 11/8 is a type of fourth, and that means that 14/11 is a type of fourth, and that clashes with 14/11 being considered instead a type of third, but these sorts of ambiguities are unavoidable when we're trying to use a Pythagorean lattice to get to all of JI. Most people will tell us we shouldn't even bother trying, but I wish they were more encouraging, as an aside...
+::: I've left behind M1 and m8 very quickly after suggesting it haha --[[User:Lhearne|Lhearne]] ([[User talk:Lhearne|talk]]) 02:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 == Notation and Well-Ordered Naming Systems ==