Talk:Normal forms: Difference between revisions

Line 104:

::::::::: 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)

:::::::::: Re: chroma-positive generators. Thank you for correcting me. Yes, that makes complete sense why they're a different matter.

:::::::::: Re: "musician's form": Sorry, but I haven't heard back from Dave yet about what he means when he uses that term. I searched the old tuning list archives and didn't find anything there either.

:::::::::: Re: "equave-reduced generator form", could you define it please? I can't guess at what that means from its name, association w/ the name musician's form, and the examples you give.

:::::::::: Re: the POTE generator lines: those aren't the only places on temperament pages where a specific form of a generator is chosen which may or may not be the one in the mappings shown, are they? Or is there a specific concern you have re: POTE generators that I'm not ascertaining?

:::::::::: Re: your proposal of which forms to include. That list looks fine though we still need to define equave-reduced and musician's forms.

:::::::::: Re: height. You make an interesting point about "height" as a tag, of membership in a suite of similarly useful measurements. In fact, for what it's worth, I had started typing something to that effect myself, anticipating your likely reply, but I couldn't figure out how to say it without muddying the points I was already making. So I'm glad to see that you went ahead and made the point, and I think you put it a lot more clearly than I was going to. :) So while I personally disagree that sopfr requires any explanation, I concur that there is value in a domain such as xenharmonics rebranding established mathematical operations in order to underline important interrelations such as this. I would still prefer that these rebrands be descriptive. Why not "product height", "log product height", and "factor-sum height", I mean?

:::::::::: Re: product. When you say, "I hope to drop ''product'' as both the numerator and the denominator correlates strongly with the product in any good commas," what do you mean exactly? The "product" here as I understand is the product (as in multiplication) of the numerator and denominator. So of course both the numerator and the denominator correlate strongly with the product. And why would this be a reason to drop the word "product"? Sorry if I missed something obvious here.

:::::::::: Re: mingen coinage. For the record that was Dave's coinage, not mine, and I have some qualms about it, but I have been promulgating it, so your point stands. Of your suggestions, I like "minimal ratio form" the best; "minimal comma form" leaves open for me the interpretation that the comma be smallest in ''cents'', which is more akin to the sense in which "minimal generator form" uses "minimal", but I think it is more appropriate to deal with commas as ratios but generators as cents values. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 20:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 104: / Line 104: @@
 ::::::::: 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)
+:::::::::: Re: chroma-positive generators. Thank you for correcting me. Yes, that makes complete sense why they're a different matter.
+:::::::::: Re: "musician's form": Sorry, but I haven't heard back from Dave yet about what he means when he uses that term. I searched the old tuning list archives and didn't find anything there either.
+:::::::::: Re: "equave-reduced generator form", could you define it please? I can't guess at what that means from its name, association w/ the name musician's form, and the examples you give.
+:::::::::: Re: the POTE generator lines: those aren't the only places on temperament pages where a specific form of a generator is chosen which may or may not be the one in the mappings shown, are they? Or is there a specific concern you have re: POTE generators that I'm not ascertaining?
+:::::::::: Re: your proposal of which forms to include. That list looks fine though we still need to define equave-reduced and musician's forms.
+:::::::::: Re: height. You make an interesting point about "height" as a tag, of membership in a suite of similarly useful measurements. In fact, for what it's worth, I had started typing something to that effect myself, anticipating your likely reply, but I couldn't figure out how to say it without muddying the points I was already making. So I'm glad to see that you went ahead and made the point, and I think you put it a lot more clearly than I was going to. :) So while I personally disagree that sopfr requires any explanation, I concur that there is value in a domain such as xenharmonics rebranding established mathematical operations in order to underline important interrelations such as this. I would still prefer that these rebrands be descriptive. Why not "product height", "log product height", and "factor-sum height", I mean?
+:::::::::: Re: product. When you say, "I hope to drop ''product'' as both the numerator and the denominator correlates strongly with the product in any good commas," what do you mean exactly? The "product" here as I understand is the product (as in multiplication) of the numerator and denominator. So of course both the numerator and the denominator correlate strongly with the product. And why would this be a reason to drop the word "product"? Sorry if I missed something obvious here.
+:::::::::: Re: mingen coinage. For the record that was Dave's coinage, not mine, and I have some qualms about it, but I have been promulgating it, so your point stands. Of your suggestions, I like "minimal ratio form" the best; "minimal comma form" leaves open for me the interpretation that the comma be smallest in ''cents'', which is more akin to the sense in which "minimal generator form" uses "minimal", but I think it is more appropriate to deal with commas as ratios but generators as cents values. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 20:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)