Talk:Chain-of-fifths notation: Difference between revisions
→What about 53edo?: answer |
→Sufficient condition: new section |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
: Btw it's never dictated that only double sharp to double flat should be used. Without higher-order sharp/flats, larger edos are very limited. 26edo, for example, requires Gx to Abb to access every note in the key of C major. Now modulate to any key with more than three accidentals and boom. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 06:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC) | : Btw it's never dictated that only double sharp to double flat should be used. Without higher-order sharp/flats, larger edos are very limited. 26edo, for example, requires Gx to Abb to access every note in the key of C major. Now modulate to any key with more than three accidentals and boom. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 06:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC) | ||
== Sufficient condition == | |||
The decisive point for the usability of this notation is, that the representations of octave and fifth are relatively prime. I'd like to introduce this without making the article to a mathematical text, maybe there is somebody willing to help. I also wonder if the precision of the fifth representation is relevant at all. This would open the discussion about really interesting cases like [[23edo]]. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 12:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC) | |||