Talk:Val: Difference between revisions

Line 29:

::: Hmm, I still genuinely estimate that adding "(aka. [[frequency ratio]]s)" would be helpful for a beginner and do no harm to the state of the page, cuz "frequency ratio" is essentially the beginner word for "interval" if someone isn't accustomed to the meaning of "interval", EG isn't a musician as many new to xen aren't. I also say this coming from the perspective of concern about negative intervals being unintuitive/potentially confusing to get right in technical speech and consideration while a ratio (a rational number) is extremely straightforward. Also, there was some discussion on Discord that "val" actually comes from "p-adic valuation", which suggests that the preimage is a rational number, not a monzo. In light of this, I'm really curious what you think of [this https://yahootuninggroupsultimatebackup.github.io/tuning-math/topicId_7525.html#7532] which was linked to me by sintel, as it (apparently) concerns the origin of the term "val". --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 09:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

:::: Quite the opposite, ''interval'' is the beginner word for ''frequency ratio''. All musicians know about intervals, but only the small group of musicians who study JI like us know about frequency ratios. Non-musicians might not know about either, but if they do know about one, it's 99% ''interval''.

:::: I don't see how negative intervals pose a problem at all. If anything they pose a problem as much as less-than-one ratios do.

:::: I don't care about the origin of ''val''. Gene is but one who liked computing RTT in terms of ratios but it's not the most common way to do RTT today. I for one have been thinking of ''val'' as the dual of ''interval'' lately and haven't run into any issue.

:::: In any case, I don't mind replacing ''interval'' with ''frequency ratio'' tho I also don't think it adds anything. I'm against equating them.

:::: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

> Tunings of interest

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 ::: Hmm, I still genuinely estimate that adding "(aka. [[frequency ratio]]s)" would be helpful for a beginner and do no harm to the state of the page, cuz "frequency ratio" is essentially the beginner word for "interval" if someone isn't accustomed to the meaning of "interval", EG isn't a musician as many new to xen aren't. I also say this coming from the perspective of concern about negative intervals being unintuitive/potentially confusing to get right in technical speech and consideration while a ratio (a rational number) is extremely straightforward. Also, there was some discussion on Discord that "val" actually comes from "p-adic valuation", which suggests that the preimage is a rational number, not a monzo. In light of this, I'm really curious what you think of [this https://yahootuninggroupsultimatebackup.github.io/tuning-math/topicId_7525.html#7532] which was linked to me by sintel, as it (apparently) concerns the origin of the term "val". --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 09:46, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
+:::: Quite the opposite, ''interval'' is the beginner word for ''frequency ratio''. All musicians know about intervals, but only the small group of musicians who study JI like us know about frequency ratios. Non-musicians might not know about either, but if they do know about one, it's 99% ''interval''.
+:::: I don't see how negative intervals pose a problem at all. If anything they pose a problem as much as less-than-one ratios do.
+:::: I don't care about the origin of ''val''. Gene is but one who liked computing RTT in terms of ratios but it's not the most common way to do RTT today. I for one have been thinking of ''val'' as the dual of ''interval'' lately and haven't run into any issue.
+:::: In any case, I don't mind replacing ''interval'' with ''frequency ratio'' tho I also don't think it adds anything. I'm against equating them.
+:::: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 13:21, 8 May 2026 (UTC)
 > Tunings of interest