User talk:FloraC: Difference between revisions

Line 232:

Thank you --[[User:Royalmilktea|Royalmilktea]] ([[User talk:Royalmilktea|talk]]) 07:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

:> What are/were your motivations for this page?

: It seems like a good criterion for whether a comma is an efficient one.

:> What is the difference between the two definitions on that page?

: My redefinition is more strict. For example, 135/128 would be a reasonable comma in the original definition cuz none of 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 is 5-limit. In my redefinition 135/128 isn't one since 135/128 = (25/24)(81/80), factored into two simpler commas.

:> What is the algorithm you used? (as to extend to higher limits)

: Dead Shaman somehow generated the lists of commas according to his original definition. I simply checked each comma manually. So unfortunately I don't have an algorithm to share.

[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 05:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@@ Line 232: / Line 232: @@
 Thank you --[[User:Royalmilktea|Royalmilktea]] ([[User talk:Royalmilktea|talk]]) 07:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
+:> What are/were your motivations for this page?
+: It seems like a good criterion for whether a comma is an efficient one.
+:> What is the difference between the two definitions on that page?
+: My redefinition is more strict. For example, 135/128 would be a reasonable comma in the original definition cuz none of 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134 is 5-limit. In my redefinition 135/128 isn't one since 135/128 = (25/24)(81/80), factored into two simpler commas.
+:> What is the algorithm you used? (as to extend to higher limits)
+: Dead Shaman somehow generated the lists of commas according to his original definition. I simply checked each comma manually. So unfortunately I don't have an algorithm to share.
+[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 05:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)