Talk:The Riemann zeta function and tuning: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
::: Well, to be specific, I didn't say that zeta integral was intended to account for octave-tempering, I said I believed it corresponded to robustness of detuning the octave so that it seems to me ''more reasonable'' to consider the pure-octaves tunings for zeta integral equal temperaments than zeta peak equal temperaments. This can be demonstrated pretty directly by noting that the zeta integer peaks are meaningfully different from the zeta peaks. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 20:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC) | ::: Well, to be specific, I didn't say that zeta integral was intended to account for octave-tempering, I said I believed it corresponded to robustness of detuning the octave so that it seems to me ''more reasonable'' to consider the pure-octaves tunings for zeta integral equal temperaments than zeta peak equal temperaments. This can be demonstrated pretty directly by noting that the zeta integer peaks are meaningfully different from the zeta peaks. --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 20:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC) | ||
:::: Zeta integral and zeta peak integer are different metrics; zeta peak integer refers to the value of zeta at the pure-octave EDO while zeta integral refers to the integral under the curve between two zeros, which is only definable at s = 1/2 (assuming RH) because that's where the zeros are. Are you referring to ''peak integer'' edos instead? In that case the list is still on the working page. | |||
:::: ~~ | |||
=== General concern about edit strategy === | === General concern about edit strategy === | ||