Xenharmonic Wiki:Things to do: Difference between revisions
| Line 156: | Line 156: | ||
We need a criterion that's as objective as possible for when an EDO should be said to be good for JI subgroups. Some possibilities: | We need a criterion that's as objective as possible for when an EDO should be said to be good for JI subgroups. Some possibilities: | ||
# absolute error? (arbitrary since different people accept different amounts of error) | # absolute error? (arbitrary since different people accept different amounts of error) | ||
# [[consistent]]? (breaks for small edos; actual accuracy depends too much on the size of the edo) | # [[consistent]]? (semi-objective, but breaks for small edos; actual accuracy depends too much on the size of the edo) | ||
# consistent to distance 1? (see new definition in [[Consistent]] page), The justification is that some small piece of the JI subgroup lattice (maybe to distance one of the "fundamental chord") should map "consistently" in the edo, in addition to the chord itself being consistent. | # consistent to distance 1? (see new definition in [[Consistent]] page), The justification is that some small piece of the JI subgroup lattice (maybe to distance one of the "fundamental chord") should map "consistently" in the edo, in addition to the chord itself being consistent. | ||