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)

I believe subgroup extensions may be prioritized if they skip one prime. Any more than one, they tend to be esoteric, and there's not much logic to putting them at the top organizationally. Instead, the overview section should be expanded to inform the readers of a subgroup extensions section. —FloraC (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

It isn't an esoteric extension. It gives interpretation to the gen as ~40/31~31/24, which is an extremely accurate (S31 difference) harmonical interpretation of the sqrt(5/3) gen. It'd be easier to argue that the schismic extension to prime 41 is arbitrary due to the distance on the chain required to reach prime 41, although even that isn't that strange as it's via S81, so is good in any tuning with an accurate syntonic comma. --Godtone (talk) 16:55, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

It's esoteric cuz the subgroup is esoteric. —FloraC (talk) 03:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me that this sense only serves to prioritise low-prime-limit temps with complete subgroups (which obviously did not need more prioritisation given that's the standard structure of the wiki), while shifting focus away from potentially significant unique opportunities (as judged by high accuracy, obvious mapping and completion of interpretations) in higher limits. for example, 5-limit diaschismic has an obvious subgroup extension to prime 17 which if not canonical is at least clearly relevant. And similarly, moving it to the end had the same effect ("shifting focus away from potentially significant unique opportunities (as judged by high accuracy, obvious mapping and completion of interpretations)"). I'd like for you to address this concern properly and solidly rather than reshifting focus on what you see as the best method of organisation. Did anyone other than you take issue with this organisation/motion towards what you suggested? --Godtone (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2026 (UTC)