Talk:Porcupine family: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Re |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:: Why obscure the idea that different systems more naturally support different primes? This seems like a crucial piece of info about any given temperament. Meantone works best in 2.3.5.7, mintra works best in 3.5.7.11, kleismic works best in 2.3.5.13, and porcupine works best in 2.3.5.11. | :: Why obscure the idea that different systems more naturally support different primes? This seems like a crucial piece of info about any given temperament. Meantone works best in 2.3.5.7, mintra works best in 3.5.7.11, kleismic works best in 2.3.5.13, and porcupine works best in 2.3.5.11. | ||
:: 2.3.5.7 porcupine is simply unnatural. It is not a convergence of 2.3.5.7.11 porcupine and any other reasonable porcupine mapping, because strong porcupine has no other reasonable mapping of 11 than the porkypine version. Therefore, there is no reason to talk about it on its own. --[[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 23:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC) | :: 2.3.5.7 porcupine is simply unnatural. It is not a convergence of 2.3.5.7.11 porcupine and any other reasonable porcupine mapping, because strong porcupine has no other reasonable mapping of 11 than the porkypine version. Therefore, there is no reason to talk about it on its own. --[[User:VectorGraphics|VectorGraphics]] ([[User talk:VectorGraphics|talk]]) 23:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC) | ||
::: 2.3.5.11-subgroup porcupine has been documented. No one's saying it should be removed, so it's not being "obscured". Septimal porcupine is very natural: it extends 5-limit porcupine without changing the complexity, accuracy, or optimal tuning much. Thus, it is canon. "Porcupine has no other reasonable mapping of 11" is true but is besides the point cuz not everyone has to be interested in the 11-limit. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 09:01, 14 May 2025 (UTC) | |||