Detempering: Difference between revisions

Line 8:

The two definitions are equivalent because if a detempering of an n-note equal temperament ''v'' is one-to-one, then second definition follows by the additivity of ''v'', and given the second definition the injectivity is immediate.

~~As suggested by its name, the~~ property is strictly stronger than [[constant structure]] (CS). When one assumes ''S'' is a CS but not that it is a one-to-one detempering, there is a unique set map <math>v : \{\text{intervals of $S$}\} \to \mathbb{Z}</math> that witnesses that ''S'' is a CS and satisfies ''v''(''S''[''i'']) = ''i'' for all ''i''. Thus a CS scale ''S'' is a one-to-one detempering if and only if this mapping ''v'' extends to a linear map on the entirety of ''A''.

The property is strictly stronger than [[constant structure]] (CS). When one assumes ''S'' is a CS but not that it is a one-to-one detempering, there is a unique set map <math>v : \{\text{intervals of $S$}\} \to \mathbb{Z}</math> that witnesses that ''S'' is a CS and satisfies ''v''(''S''[''i'']) = ''i'' for all ''i''. Thus a CS scale ''S'' is a one-to-one detempering if and only if this mapping ''v'' extends to a linear map on the entirety of ''A''.

This definition extends naturally to asking whether a higher-dimensional mapping <math>S:\mathbb{Z}^n \to P</math> for an arbitrary codomain <math>P</math> of relative pitches is a one-to-one detempering, in the same sense of there existing an abelian group <math>A</math> and a linear map <math>v : A \to \mathbb{Z}^n</math> such that <math>v(S(x)) = x.</math> This can be of practical interest: one might ask whether an isomorphic keyboard mapping <math>S : \mathbb{Z}^2 \to P</math> (for a theoretical infinite 2D isomorphic keyboard) is epimorphic.

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 The two definitions are equivalent because if a detempering of an n-note equal temperament ''v'' is one-to-one, then second definition follows by the additivity of ''v'', and given the second definition the injectivity is immediate.
-As suggested by its name, the property is strictly stronger than [[constant structure]] (CS). When one assumes ''S'' is a CS but not that it is a one-to-one detempering, there is a unique set map <math>v : \{\text{intervals of $S$}\} \to \mathbb{Z}</math> that witnesses that ''S'' is a CS and satisfies ''v''(''S''[''i'']) = ''i'' for all ''i''. Thus a CS scale ''S'' is a one-to-one detempering if and only if this mapping ''v'' extends to a linear map on the entirety of ''A''.
+The property is strictly stronger than [[constant structure]] (CS). When one assumes ''S'' is a CS but not that it is a one-to-one detempering, there is a unique set map <math>v : \{\text{intervals of $S$}\} \to \mathbb{Z}</math> that witnesses that ''S'' is a CS and satisfies ''v''(''S''[''i'']) = ''i'' for all ''i''. Thus a CS scale ''S'' is a one-to-one detempering if and only if this mapping ''v'' extends to a linear map on the entirety of ''A''.
 This definition extends naturally to asking whether a higher-dimensional mapping <math>S:\mathbb{Z}^n \to P</math> for an arbitrary codomain <math>P</math> of relative pitches is a one-to-one detempering, in the same sense of there existing an abelian group <math>A</math> and a linear map <math>v : A \to \mathbb{Z}^n</math> such that <math>v(S(x)) = x.</math> This can be of practical interest: one might ask whether an isomorphic keyboard mapping <math>S : \mathbb{Z}^2 \to P</math> (for a theoretical infinite 2D isomorphic keyboard) is epimorphic.