Talk:Telicity

Meaning and unit

I think the article should start with a general classification. Since here is spoken of a property, the next question is, whether this property is of qualitative or quantitative nature, connected with it would be then questions about the domain of values and about possible units. What do you think? --Xenwolf (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I do think that there are both qualitative as well as quantitative aspects to telicity- especially when you apply this to the JND. As to the domain of values and the possible units, those are definitely good questions, though to be fair this portion covers the telicity range of commas and other small music intervals like the JND. I should point out that "telicity" itself seems to almost exist on a true or false basis for any given type, such as 3-to-2, 5-to-3, 11-to-3, etcetera, while the related "telicity range" denotes the numerical range in which a given type of telicity, as achieved by either the tempering of a given comma, or, as in the case of the JND, the direct mapping to the unison, can potentially be true. --Aura (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

One part of the quantitative aspect of this is particularly clear, the unit for used for the measurement of telicity range represents the number of steps in a given EDO. Meanwhile, I do know that when a single type of telicity is accomplished in a given EDO through the tempering of multiple commas, the EDO can be said to demonstrate "multitelicity" of that given type, the specific nature of the multitelicity being expressed by a numerical prefix, such as uni-, bi-, tri-, etcetera, attached to the word "telicity". Perhaps it can be said that telicity itself is multifaceted... --Aura (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Now that I'm really thinking about it, I'm thinking that we're actually dealing with a collection of closely intertwined properties, some of which are qualitative, others of which are quantitative. Judging from the definition of "telicity" itself as presented by the article's first paragraph, I'd say that telicity itself is ultimately a qualitative property. I mean, things like 3-to-2 telicity, 5-to-3 telicity, 5-to-2 telicity and 11-to-3 telicity are definitely qualitative. However, the details on how and where telicity is achieved- which are covered by ideas like "multitelicity" and "telicity range", are all quantitative things that have measurements. Does this sound right? --Aura (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I also thought of reach first. Interesting that you brought up "telicity range" in the end. I'm not so happy with the new term "multitelicity"; as long "telicity" as is not completely clear, "multitelicity" will be even harder to define. --Xenwolf (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

How then do we make the concept of "telicity" itself more clear? --Aura (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I mean, the only things I know for sure are that "telicity" builds on Inthar's concept of "Consistency to distance d" in terms of its core definition – the ability on the part of a given EDO, by means of tempering one or more commas smaller than half a step, to successfully stack a number of instances of a given prime's patent interval to connect with an interval belonging to a chain created by a lower prime's patent interval (here denoted as a "telos") without either accumulating 50% relative error or more at any point in the process on the part of either prime's patent interval chain, or, creating as mismatch in results between the direct mapping and the more complicated traditional mapping for any interval along the chain.

From there, "telic" can be defined as the adjective used not only for for describing an EDO as demonstrating telicity, but also for describing a comma that can be used to achieve the feat described in the definition of "telicity".

With this in mind, "multitelicity" is the noun form of "multitelic", which is an adjective describing an EDO that has more tempered out comma that can achieve the feat described in the definition of "telicity".

Does this make more sense now? --Aura (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)