Talk:Direct approximation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 141: | Line 141: | ||
:::: 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 the term "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 and other people who want to deal in telicity. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:23, 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 the term "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 and other people who want to deal in telicity. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 03:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC) | ||
::::: Oh! My bad. Yes, I see what you're saying now. Sorry I didn't read carefully enough the first time. Of course, you would need to contrast a direct fifth with a patent fifth. That makes sense and is totally fine with me. As you may know I prefer "simple map" to "patent val" and so would prefer "simple fifth" to "patent fifth", but I won't begrudge you for using "patent", as it's patently ;) well-established. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 03:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC) | |||