Talk:Kite's thoughts on enharmonic unisons: Difference between revisions

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 == Wrong terminology ==
-This is confusing ''enharmonic'' for ''equivalence'' just becuz 12edo happens to have that kind of equivalence. Enharmonic intervals don't imply equivalence. For example C# and Db are enharmonic intervals in 19edo, but not equivalent. I think this article might be titled ''equivalent interval'', or for better distinction from ''interval of equivalence'' / ''equave'', it could be ''notationally equivalent interval'' or at least ''enharmonically equivalent interval'', to build on what is abstracted in the ''Nominal-accidental chain'' article.
+This is confusing ''enharmonic'' for ''equivalence'' just becuz 12edo happens to have that kind of equivalence. Enharmonic intervals don't imply equivalence. For example A1 and m2 are enharmonic intervals in 19edo, but not equivalent. I think this article might be titled ''equivalent interval'', or for better distinction from ''interval of equivalence'' / ''equave'', it could be ''notationally equivalent interval'' or at least ''enharmonically equivalent interval'', to build on what is abstracted in the ''Nominal-accidental chain'' article.
 As an alternative, if the topic is just equivalence, then "interval" need not appear in the title and we could just go with ''equivalence (notation)'', ''notational equivalence'', or ''enharmonic equivalence''.
 [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 12:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)