Talk:Direct approximation: Difference between revisions

From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Inthar (talk | contribs)
Xenwolf (talk | contribs)
Line 5: Line 5:
: I would say the page is still useful.  
: I would say the page is still useful.  
: (And you can in principle make a patent val for any set of intervals, say {3/2, 236 cents, φ}, not necessarily just intervals like {2/1, 3/1, 5/1}. Just remember what interval corresponds to which entry. The notation used on the wiki is p-limit-centric though; we could talk about extending the notation for JI subgroups.) [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 10:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
: (And you can in principle make a patent val for any set of intervals, say {3/2, 236 cents, φ}, not necessarily just intervals like {2/1, 3/1, 5/1}. Just remember what interval corresponds to which entry. The notation used on the wiki is p-limit-centric though; we could talk about extending the notation for JI subgroups.) [[User:IlL|Inthar]] ([[User talk:IlL|talk]]) 10:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
:: Yes, that's basically what I meant. Thanks for adjusting the wording in the article. --[[User:Xenwolf|Xenwolf]] ([[User talk:Xenwolf|talk]]) 11:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:20, 18 January 2021

Applicability

I wished to express that the concept of "patent interval" is not only useful for just intervals which can be represented by rational numbers, but any given real value treated as an interval an be approximated this way. The overall intention of the article was to link "patent fifth" to something more practical than the more abstract patent val. But maybe this wasn't such a great idea... --Xenwolf (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say the page is still useful.
(And you can in principle make a patent val for any set of intervals, say {3/2, 236 cents, φ}, not necessarily just intervals like {2/1, 3/1, 5/1}. Just remember what interval corresponds to which entry. The notation used on the wiki is p-limit-centric though; we could talk about extending the notation for JI subgroups.) Inthar (talk) 10:00, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's basically what I meant. Thanks for adjusting the wording in the article. --Xenwolf (talk) 11:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)