Talk:Sensipent family: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "== Is 2.3.5.31 sensipent not accurate enough to be canonical? == I ask because the optimal ET sequence starts 8, 11c, 19, 46, 65 for both but 5-limit sensipent finishes with 539, 604c, 669c while 2.3.5.31 finishes with 344, 409, 474, 539, 604c, so both reach the constrained range implied by 539 and 604c. Also, it looked prettier and presented interesting information up-front in its previous form. Take a look at [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Sensipent_family&diff=2..." |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Is 2.3.5.31 sensipent not accurate enough to be canonical? == | == Is 2.3.5.31 sensipent not accurate enough to be canonical? == | ||
I ask because the optimal ET sequence starts 8, 11c, 19, 46, 65 for both but 5-limit sensipent finishes with 539, 604c, 669c while 2.3.5.31 finishes with 344, 409, 474, 539, 604c, so both reach the constrained range implied by 539 and 604c. Also, it looked prettier and presented interesting information up-front in its previous form. Take a look at [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Sensipent_family&diff=235058&oldid=217967 this diff]. I certainly understand moving the sendai section but the 2.3.5.31 subgroup should rightly be categorised as an extension, no? --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 23:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC) | I ask because the optimal ET sequence starts 8, 11c, 19, 46, 65 for both but 5-limit sensipent finishes with 539, 604c, 669c while 2.3.5.31 finishes with 344, 409, 474, 539, 604c, so both reach the constrained range implied by 539 and 604c. Also, it looked prettier and presented interesting information up-front in its previous form. Take a look at [https://en.xen.wiki/index.php?title=Sensipent_family&diff=235058&oldid=217967 this diff]. I certainly understand moving the sendai section but the 2.3.5.31 subgroup should rightly be categorised as an extension, no? --[[User:Godtone|Godtone]] ([[User talk:Godtone|talk]]) 23:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC) | ||
: It's canonical. Just that I decided that any subgroup temp that skips two or more primes should be placed at the bottom of the page, so that you see the 7-limit temps sooner and see the 2.3.5.11 and 2.3.5.7.11 temps both immediately at the H3 level: | |||
<pre> | |||
== 2.3.5 == | |||
=== 2.3.5.11 === | |||
== 2.3.5.7 == | |||
=== 2.3.5.7.11 === | |||
</pre> | |||
: —[[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 07:55, 20 August 2026 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:55, 20 August 2026
Is 2.3.5.31 sensipent not accurate enough to be canonical?
I ask because the optimal ET sequence starts 8, 11c, 19, 46, 65 for both but 5-limit sensipent finishes with 539, 604c, 669c while 2.3.5.31 finishes with 344, 409, 474, 539, 604c, so both reach the constrained range implied by 539 and 604c. Also, it looked prettier and presented interesting information up-front in its previous form. Take a look at this diff. I certainly understand moving the sendai section but the 2.3.5.31 subgroup should rightly be categorised as an extension, no? --Godtone (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2026 (UTC)
- It's canonical. Just that I decided that any subgroup temp that skips two or more primes should be placed at the bottom of the page, so that you see the 7-limit temps sooner and see the 2.3.5.11 and 2.3.5.7.11 temps both immediately at the H3 level:
== 2.3.5 == === 2.3.5.11 === == 2.3.5.7 == === 2.3.5.7.11 ===