Talk:159edo: Difference between revisions

Line 108:

I eould say it's important that any change or updating of terms be graceful and as backward-compatible as possible. Maybe the larger minthma/gentle comma for 352/351 (old minthma) and smaller minthma/gentle comma for 364/363 (old gentle comma). I know that people have relied on the old names, and developed temperaments that, unlike my gentle but just as validly, temper out one but not the other. So this kind of collegiality and consultation is very helpful in seeking out, if you'll forgive the pun, the kindest and most gentle solution. [[User:Mschulter1325|Mschulter1325]] 02:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

== How much consistency matters ==

Of course you would want an interval like 6/5 or 11/7 to be consistent, as these are simple ratios that have their consonance affected by mistuning. However, there should be less significance in getting intervals like 35/32 and 49/32 consistent, as the consonance of intervals like these is not as obvious , even if still plausible. Also, telicity seems an interesting topic, but its importance seems limited. For example, 41edo is not 3-2 telic because 617673396283947/562949953421312 (monzo: [-49 31>) is inconsistent, but who would memorize the size of pythagorean intervals that complex? I hardly care about consistency of pythagorean intervals more complex than 2187/2048, and at most 531441/524288, so telicity seems to be redundant when we have more than even 12 notes. Telicity involves higher-limit intervals being on the 2-3 chain as well, but how much does it matter that it also lines up with the really complex pythagorean interval? There are temperaments like Garibaldi that use a long chain of fifths, but telicity seems far from essential in general. All that being said, 159edo still seems like an interesting system, though its quite complex and I will try systems like 17edo and 19edo first.--[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 04:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 I eould say it's important that any change or updating of terms be graceful and as backward-compatible as possible. Maybe the larger minthma/gentle comma for 352/351 (old minthma) and smaller minthma/gentle comma for 364/363 (old gentle comma). I know that people have relied on the old names, and developed temperaments that, unlike my gentle but just as validly, temper out one but not the other. So this kind of collegiality and consultation is very helpful in seeking out, if you'll forgive the pun, the kindest and most gentle solution. [[User:Mschulter1325|Mschulter1325]] 02:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
+== How much consistency matters ==
+Of course you would want an interval like 6/5 or 11/7 to be consistent, as these are simple ratios that have their consonance affected by mistuning. However, there should be less significance in getting intervals like 35/32 and 49/32 consistent, as the consonance of intervals like these is not as obvious , even if still plausible. Also, telicity seems an interesting topic, but its importance seems limited. For example, 41edo is not 3-2 telic because 617673396283947/562949953421312 (monzo: [-49 31>) is inconsistent, but who would memorize the size of pythagorean intervals that complex? I hardly care about consistency of pythagorean intervals more complex than 2187/2048, and at most 531441/524288, so telicity seems to be redundant when we have more than even 12 notes. Telicity involves higher-limit intervals being on the 2-3 chain as well, but how much does it matter that it also lines up with the really complex pythagorean interval? There are temperaments like Garibaldi that use a long chain of fifths, but telicity seems far from essential in general. All that being said, 159edo still seems like an interesting system, though its quite complex and I will try systems like 17edo and 19edo first.--[[User:Overthink|Overthink]] ([[User talk:Overthink|talk]]) 04:34, 27 September 2025 (UTC)