Talk:Sensipent family

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 ===

—FloraC (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

If you agree a subgroup extension is canonical s.t there's no ambiguity (meaning it's unique among alternatives) then I believe it should be presented as such (as an extension proper, but with a subheader indicating it's a subgroup extension, as it was before). Furthermore, your reason seems backwards to me; shouldn't a subgroup extension that isn't in the increasing order of primes be prioritised at the very top, as it represents unique information? --Godtone (talk)