Talk:CET: Difference between revisions

Line 62:

|}

:: But we can actually do even better! That weirdness with the AD situation calls my attention to another fact: if it's 1-E{X}D-p, then the {X} doesn't matter, so everything may as well be simply E(P)D. The only reason to specify L or F would be to correspond with whatever format the p was given in; it doesn't actually affect the system. And as Flora recently showed me, while I myself intended for APS only to be given in cents, when I wrote up the wiki article, I ended up giving some of them in pitch, so there's some natural gravity to thinking this way. Also, AD didn't even exist before so it'd be awkward if this introduced it. So here's what that change looks like, where F → (P), L → (P), O → A, U → A, then A → E:

:: <s>But we can actually do even better! That weirdness with the AD situation calls my attention to another fact: if it's 1-E{X}D-p, then the {X} doesn't matter, so everything may as well be simply E(P)D. The only reason to specify L or F would be to correspond with whatever format the p was given in; it doesn't actually affect the system. And as Flora recently showed me, while I myself intended for APS only to be given in cents, when I wrote up the wiki article, I ended up giving some of them in pitch, so there's some natural gravity to thinking this way. Also, AD didn't even exist before so it'd be awkward if this introduced it. So here's what that change looks like, where F → (P), L → (P), O → A, U → A, then A → E:

:: {| class="wikitable"

Line 77:

|n-ELD-p

|n-UD-p

|}

|} </s>

:: Now, thinking of 1 division of something is inherently awkward, so this isn't a strict win such that I'd deprecate all the existing sequence stuff. But I do like how 1-divisions leverage the n-division structure that people are already familiar with, and it doesn't conflict with the sequences at all, so I'm certainly not against CompactStar's approach here. I think there's room for both, but I'd just like to see what the community prefers, and if sequences go by the wayside, I understand and accept. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Line 97:

: Oh yeah, ugh. I just got really confused. Scratch all that. Sorry. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 02:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

: I've also just now scratched out the stuff I wrote in my earlier post, which was similarly misguided. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 16:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@@ Line 62: / Line 62: @@
 |}
-:: But we can actually do even better! That weirdness with the AD situation calls my attention to another fact: if it's 1-E{X}D-p, then the {X} doesn't matter, so everything may as well be simply E(P)D. The only reason to specify L or F would be to correspond with whatever format the p was given in; it doesn't actually affect the system. And as Flora recently showed me, while I myself intended for APS only to be given in cents, when I wrote up the wiki article, I ended up giving some of them in pitch, so there's some natural gravity to thinking this way. Also, AD didn't even exist before so it'd be awkward if this introduced it. So here's what that change looks like, where F → (P), L → (P), O → A, U → A, then A → E:
+:: <s>But we can actually do even better! That weirdness with the AD situation calls my attention to another fact: if it's 1-E{X}D-p, then the {X} doesn't matter, so everything may as well be simply E(P)D. The only reason to specify L or F would be to correspond with whatever format the p was given in; it doesn't actually affect the system. And as Flora recently showed me, while I myself intended for APS only to be given in cents, when I wrote up the wiki article, I ended up giving some of them in pitch, so there's some natural gravity to thinking this way. Also, AD didn't even exist before so it'd be awkward if this introduced it. So here's what that change looks like, where F → (P), L → (P), O → A, U → A, then A → E:
 :: {| class="wikitable"
@@ Line 77: / Line 77: @@
 |n-ELD-p
 |n-UD-p
-|}
+|} </s>
 :: Now, thinking of 1 division of something is inherently awkward, so this isn't a strict win such that I'd deprecate all the existing sequence stuff. But I do like how 1-divisions leverage the n-division structure that people are already familiar with, and it doesn't conflict with the sequences at all, so I'm certainly not against CompactStar's approach here. I think there's room for both, but I'd just like to see what the community prefers, and if sequences go by the wayside, I understand and accept. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 19:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
@@ Line 97: / Line 97: @@
 : Oh yeah, ugh. I just got really confused. Scratch all that. Sorry. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 02:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
+: I've also just now scratched out the stuff I wrote in my earlier post, which was similarly misguided. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 16:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)