Talk:Arithmetic tuning: Difference between revisions
Cmloegcmluin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
re |
||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
::: Sorry I didn't ask for clarity on this earlier, but I still don't understand what you mean by "orthogonality" here. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | ::: Sorry I didn't ask for clarity on this earlier, but I still don't understand what you mean by "orthogonality" here. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | ||
:::: Yes, applying arithmetic sequences on the different scales of measurement is one possible logic. The approach I much prefer is to think of a kind of sequence as ''indicating'' the scale of measurement. | |||
:::: I explained the lack of orthogonality as "one specification is often encompassed by another", and so by having orthogonality our specifications would be minimal and disjoint from each other. Note that this is not abouting deprecating the concepts and the names, only how we specify individual tuning systems. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 19:43, 3 March 2023 (UTC) | |||