Talk:Superparticular ratio: Difference between revisions
Header levels, reply |
→Delta-N as a "replacement": new section |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
: As I discussed on Discord, I left it there when I cleaned up the page recently, because I think it highlights how the property for the logarithmic difference (i.e. quotient) does not extend to the logarithmic sum (i.e. product). I guess it could be rewritten as "is not necessarily superparticular", from that perspective. Technically, the property guarantees that the product is greater than 1, because the initial ratios were taken as greater than 1, although that isn't very surprising in itself. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 01:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | : As I discussed on Discord, I left it there when I cleaned up the page recently, because I think it highlights how the property for the logarithmic difference (i.e. quotient) does not extend to the logarithmic sum (i.e. product). I guess it could be rewritten as "is not necessarily superparticular", from that perspective. Technically, the property guarantees that the product is greater than 1, because the initial ratios were taken as greater than 1, although that isn't very surprising in itself. --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 01:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
== Delta-N as a "replacement" == | |||
I don't think Kite's use of the word "replacement" in the paragraph about delta-N terminology is appropriate for this article. I think "alternative" would be more suitable, especially since we are talking about terminology (superparticular/epimoric/etc.) that has been in use for many centuries before us, not just in music but in mathematics as well, and that is still actively used today by xenharmonic theorists in expressions like "[[square superparticular]]". | |||
I believe that the expression of a single person's preference for a term over another is not something we should find on articles in the main namespace on this wiki; even though we are not literally Wikipedia, because we accept original work and such, I think we should try to follow a few basic guidelines, such as [[Wikipedia:WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]], for articles in the main namespace to ensure that readers can easily tell apart facts from opinions. | |||
Also, the reason I had put this paragraph in the Etymology section at first, instead of the lead section, is that it explains why "delta-1" appears alongside "superparticular" and "epimoric" among the bolded terms at the very beginning (which are very clearly ''alternative terms'' for the same concept). Since delta-N terminology is a generalization of "superparticular", it might make sense to mention it in the Generalization section, with maybe only a quick overview of the various kinds of generalizations in the lead section. Another option that I have started thinking about (and discussed briefly on Discord) is to merge the pages [[Superparticular ratio]] and [[Superpartient ratio]], although I am still hesitant about that because there are several good reasons to keep them separate (different lists of properties, follow the same page structure as Wikipedia, avoid clutter in the lead section, etc.). --[[User:Fredg999|Fredg999]] ([[User talk:Fredg999|talk]]) 02:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC) | |||