Talk:Direct approximation: Difference between revisions
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
::: I confirm Aura's previous statement; the only intervals whose direct approximations are guaranteed to match their mapping by the simple map in RTT are the prime harmonics (or whichever intervals are the generators of the JI subgroup), because direct approximation of each of them is how the simple map is defined. | ::: I confirm Aura's previous statement; the only intervals whose direct approximations are guaranteed to match their mapping by the simple map in RTT are the prime harmonics (or whichever intervals are the generators of the JI subgroup), because direct approximation of each of them is how the simple map is defined. | ||
::: Although I'd prefer we keep "patent" out of it. Why not "direct intervals", such as a "direct fifth", if you're looking for something pithy like that? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 02:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC) | ::: Although I'd prefer we keep "patent" out of it. Why not "direct intervals", such as a "direct fifth", if you're looking for something pithy like that? --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 02:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC) | ||
:::: The reason I'm going the way I'm going with it is so that I can set up a contrast as needed between the two versions of the interval in question. Having a term for the approximations of other intervals derived indirectly by means of the patent val is important in helping to define things like telicity. While I agree with the idea of a "direct fifth" as a replacement for "patent fifth" as Xenwolf initially meant it, being able to use the term "patent" for these other, non-direct approximations would at least be useful to me. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC) | |||