Talk:Normal forms: Difference between revisions

Line 94:

:::::::: I see that you commented out the information about IRREF. Do you mind if I simply delete it? I just noticed during a search across the wiki for misinformation re: torsion that it is one of the few places that contains it. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 17:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

::::::::: Re: positive generator. Good to hear that you're willing to have all the recognized forms included in this page. That seems like the best solution we currently have.

::::::::: Down to some details. 1. first of all, I must inform you that the chroma-positive form isn't a specification of generator in a temperament, but in a MOS. For example, meantone[7] (diatonic) and meantone[12] (m-chromatic) have different chroma-positive generators since they have different chromas. 2. I feel like mentioning again the musician's form – I suggest supplying it with an alternative name: ''equave-reduced generator form'', and accordingly have the definition revised to reflect that. In this take, meantone's generator is ~3/2 and porcupine's generator is ~10/9 (not ~9/5). 3. I can't expect the mappings in the temp pages are to be changed to another form, but we do need to find out a form to be used consistently in the ''POTE generator(s)'' lines.

::::::::: So if you accept my proposal, we'll include Hermite normal form, canonical form, positive generator form, equave-reduced generator form / musician's form, and minimal generator form.

::::::::: Re: Tenney-minimal. I'd rather not see ''sopfr'' since it requires the same amount, if not more, of explanation as ''Wilson height''. As I said earlier, the Benedetti height, whatever the formula is, manifests itself as a type of height. ''Height'' is an immediately recognizable tag which carries not only the meaning of a measure of interval complexity but also implies all the properties. So we acquire the relevant knowledge without checking the formula. On the other hand, ''product complexity'' only demonstrates the formula, that is, it emphasises the computation aspect, but omits the aspects of properties and significance. That to me is penny wise and pound foolish.

::::::::: In this case, however, I admit that ''Tenney-minimal form'' is not the best term since it's equivalent to ''Benedetti-minimal form''. I guess ''minimal'' is still good. I hope to drop ''product'' as both the numerator and the denominator correlates strongly with the product in any good commas. So how about ''minimal comma form'' or ''minimal ratio form''? You coined ''minimal generator form'' and ''mingen'' after all. (I guess I won't be using ''mingen'' if there isn't ''mincom'' as well.) [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 94: / Line 94: @@
 :::::::: I see that you commented out the information about IRREF. Do you mind if I simply delete it? I just noticed during a search across the wiki for misinformation re: torsion that it is one of the few places that contains it. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 17:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
+::::::::: Re: positive generator. Good to hear that you're willing to have all the recognized forms included in this page. That seems like the best solution we currently have.
+::::::::: Down to some details. 1. first of all, I must inform you that the chroma-positive form isn't a specification of generator in a temperament, but in a MOS. For example, meantone[7] (diatonic) and meantone[12] (m-chromatic) have different chroma-positive generators since they have different chromas. 2. I feel like mentioning again the musician's form – I suggest supplying it with an alternative name: ''equave-reduced generator form'', and accordingly have the definition revised to reflect that. In this take, meantone's generator is ~3/2 and porcupine's generator is ~10/9 (not ~9/5). 3. I can't expect the mappings in the temp pages are to be changed to another form, but we do need to find out a form to be used consistently in the ''POTE generator(s)'' lines.
+::::::::: So if you accept my proposal, we'll include Hermite normal form, canonical form, positive generator form, equave-reduced generator form / musician's form, and minimal generator form.
+::::::::: Re: Tenney-minimal. I'd rather not see ''sopfr'' since it requires the same amount, if not more, of explanation as ''Wilson height''. As I said earlier, the Benedetti height, whatever the formula is, manifests itself as a type of height. ''Height'' is an immediately recognizable tag which carries not only the meaning of a measure of interval complexity but also implies all the properties. So we acquire the relevant knowledge without checking the formula. On the other hand, ''product complexity'' only demonstrates the formula, that is, it emphasises the computation aspect, but omits the aspects of properties and significance. That to me is penny wise and pound foolish.
+::::::::: In this case, however, I admit that ''Tenney-minimal form'' is not the best term since it's equivalent to ''Benedetti-minimal form''. I guess ''minimal'' is still good. I hope to drop ''product'' as both the numerator and the denominator correlates strongly with the product in any good commas. So how about ''minimal comma form'' or ''minimal ratio form''? You coined ''minimal generator form'' and ''mingen'' after all. (I guess I won't be using ''mingen'' if there isn't ''mincom'' as well.) [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)