Talk:Target tuning: Difference between revisions

: I agree with your suggestion. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 17:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

== Typo in last section ==

I believe where it says {{map|1 0 -9}} it should say {{map|1 0 -4}}, which would actually be meantone's period map. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 20:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

== Eigendecomposition ==

== Suggested improvement to the tie-breaking solution for the "Minimax" section ==

This page suggests that one should fall back to the miniRMS method to tie-break between tied minimax tunings, but that sort of misses the point of the problem. The two tied points are on extreme opposite ends of the slice of good solutions, and the optimum solution lies somewhere in between them. We don't want the tie-break to choose one or the other extreme; we want to find a better solution somewhere in between them. Instead, a power limit method should be used here, such as discussed [[Dave Keenan & Douglas Blumeyer's guide to RTT/Tuning computation#Tie breaking: Power limit method|here]]. (More context for this issue may also be found around this footnote: https://en.xen.wiki/w/Generator_embedding_optimization#cite_note-14 .) --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 22:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

== The "minimax" method as described here is more generally a "miniaverage" method ==

By the way, this appears to be the seventh change I've requested to this page, without action on them being taken. --[[User:Cmloegcmluin|Cmloegcmluin]] ([[User talk:Cmloegcmluin|talk]]) 23:23, 5 May 2023 (UTC)