Talk:The Riemann zeta function and tuning: Difference between revisions
concern about replacing the page |
m lessen severity of wording |
||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
=== General concern about edit strategy === | === General concern about edit strategy === | ||
I generally am opposed to simply replacing a page that has had many small contributions over a long period of time and which has existed mostly unchanged unless that page is | I generally am opposed to simply replacing a page that has had many small contributions over a long period of time and which has existed mostly unchanged unless that page is bad enough to the point of being hard to salvage without essentially rewriting it completely. I believed that the [[Father–3 equivalence continuum]] was bad enough to warrant this strategy (I wanted to replace it with what is currently located at [[Father–3 equivalence continuum/Godtone's approach]], but in retrospect I should've tried moving the former to a sub-page as my intent wasn't deletion). I don't believe the zeta page is bad enough. The issues I believe that page has that I don't believe the zeta page has are: | ||
* Lacking clear motivation as to why you'd want to make certain choices. Gene's derivation does not lack this and I just went through the effort of making explicit some things that might be non-obvious. | * Lacking clear motivation as to why you'd want to make certain choices. Gene's derivation does not lack this and I just went through the effort of making explicit some things that might be non-obvious. | ||
* Comprehensibility: even for a math-intimidated reader, the result is ultimately in edo lists of one kind or another, which IMO ''are'' accessible, given they stand out as lists of clickable numbers, and given you aren't required to understand all parts of a derivation to make use of the result. (For example, I don't understand the very last steps in Gene's derivation, but I understand them as being a mathematical exercise of showing equivalence so that it's in a sense a trivial (but important to work out for rigor) detail.) By contrast, the rational points at which temperaments are located in the continuum don't correspond to anything obvious unless you already know what sort of relation it's supposed to have. | * Comprehensibility: even for a math-intimidated reader, the result is ultimately in edo lists of one kind or another, which IMO ''are'' accessible, given they stand out as lists of clickable numbers, and given you aren't required to understand all parts of a derivation to make use of the result. (For example, I don't understand the very last steps in Gene's derivation, but I understand them as being a mathematical exercise of showing equivalence so that it's in a sense a trivial (but important to work out for rigor) detail.) By contrast, the rational points at which temperaments are located in the continuum don't correspond to anything obvious unless you already know what sort of relation it's supposed to have. | ||