Talk:159edo: Difference between revisions

Line 69:

:: The consistency is defined on "an interval set S". There's not a rule against prime limit but that doesn't make sense since it simply can't be consistent. I remember reading about an "n-consistent" somewhere, in which 53edo is hundreds-consistent in the 3-limit as you can stack hundreds of 3's without relative error reaching over 50%. That might be what you look for. Somebody in the FB group also proposed another "n-consistent", in which the n is something substituting 50%, similar to relative error. Another fascinating idea is the ''pepper ambiguity'' (forgive me for saving links in talk pages) – its definition is not completely clear to me and I hope to work on it soon. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 18:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

::: It looks like there multiple types of consistency being proposed even within the Facebook group, so yes, we need a discussion on this. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

::: It looks like there are multiple types of n-consistency being proposed even within the Facebook group, so yes, we need a discussion on this. --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 19:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:01, 7 January 2021 view source Aura (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled 5,920 edits No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 19:03, 7 January 2021 view source Aura (talk \| contribs) autopatrolled 5,920 edits No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 69:		Line 69:
	:: The consistency is defined on "an interval set S". There's not a rule against prime limit but that doesn't make sense since it simply can't be consistent. I remember reading about an "n-consistent" somewhere, in which 53edo is hundreds-consistent in the 3-limit as you can stack hundreds of 3's without relative error reaching over 50%. That might be what you look for. Somebody in the FB group also proposed another "n-consistent", in which the n is something substituting 50%, similar to relative error. Another fascinating idea is the ''pepper ambiguity'' (forgive me for saving links in talk pages) – its definition is not completely clear to me and I hope to work on it soon. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 18:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		:: The consistency is defined on "an interval set S". There's not a rule against prime limit but that doesn't make sense since it simply can't be consistent. I remember reading about an "n-consistent" somewhere, in which 53edo is hundreds-consistent in the 3-limit as you can stack hundreds of 3's without relative error reaching over 50%. That might be what you look for. Somebody in the FB group also proposed another "n-consistent", in which the n is something substituting 50%, similar to relative error. Another fascinating idea is the ''pepper ambiguity'' (forgive me for saving links in talk pages) – its definition is not completely clear to me and I hope to work on it soon. [[User:FloraC\|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC\|talk]]) 18:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

	::: It looks like there multiple types of consistency being proposed even within the Facebook group, so yes, we need a discussion on this. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 19:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)		::: It looks like there are multiple types of n-consistency being proposed even within the Facebook group, so yes, we need a discussion on this. --[[User:Aura\|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura\|talk]]) 19:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)