User talk:Lhearne: Difference between revisions

Line 71:

::::::::: Ah yes makes perfect sense! Cool!

::::::::: Ok so I can't write 63, 80, 94, or 159edos with well ordered names ~~with~~ using W or n even if I add R, but adding R does allow me to do so for 87edo, where in 87edo C=S=2, T=B=3, U=4, G=0, and R=1 --[[User:Lhearne|Lhearne]] ([[User talk:Lhearne|talk]]) 04:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

::::::::: Ok so I can't write 63, 80, 94, or 159edos with well ordered names without using W or n even if I add R, but adding R does allow me to do so for 87edo, where in 87edo C=S=2, T=B=3, U=4, G=0, and R=1 --[[User:Lhearne|Lhearne]] ([[User talk:Lhearne|talk]]) 04:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::: What does this mean for my idea? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Line 82:

:::::::::::: I must also point out that I think we need to worry about the 11-limit before we get too heavily involved in the 13-limit or the 17-limit, and that while it would be great to get to 270 in one go, the sheer complexity of some of these EDOs means we need to break this operation for EDO extensions into distinct phases. The first phase is where we'll be looking at EDOs up to 171- since 171edo is the largest EDO where a half of a step is greater than the JND of 3.5 cents. The second phase is the one where we'll be extending from 172 to 270. Besides, we need to take our time to get stuff right. Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::::: Ah cool, I'll check out the interval table! Ah yeah grossma probably a good candidate. I think maybe the next-tier extension to SHEFKHED could all [comma]-Wide, [comma]-narrow alterations, since I think names that suggest sizes of adjustment of interval may be exhausted after Super/sub, Up/under and bright/baby. Though interval 'types' only work when applied in a single direction - i.e. classic, undecimal, tridecimal, and Barbados, it can be extended to other commas as in 'classic', where if applied in the 'other' direction it's 'comma-Wide' or 'comma-narrow', giving us 121/64 as the rastmic major seventh, but 243/128 the rastma-Wide major seventh. I'll look at some commas, and larger edos. Yeah indeed 270 might be a lot. I managed to jump from 72 to 270 straight away in my last interval naming system - sized based, Moric, based on the Moria, a single step of 72. I did tredekian, based on the tredek, a single size of 270 - but I guess that was much simpler to extend. --[[User:Lhearne|Lhearne]] ([[User talk:Lhearne|talk]]) 05:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 ::::::::: Ah yes makes perfect sense! Cool!
-::::::::: Ok so I can't write 63, 80, 94, or 159edos with well ordered names with using W or n even if I add R, but adding R does allow me to do so for 87edo, where in 87edo C=S=2, T=B=3, U=4, G=0, and R=1 --[[User:Lhearne|Lhearne]] ([[User talk:Lhearne|talk]]) 04:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
+::::::::: Ok so I can't write 63, 80, 94, or 159edos with well ordered names without using W or n even if I add R, but adding R does allow me to do so for 87edo, where in 87edo C=S=2, T=B=3, U=4, G=0, and R=1 --[[User:Lhearne|Lhearne]] ([[User talk:Lhearne|talk]]) 04:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 :::::::::: What does this mean for my idea? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@@ Line 82: / Line 82: @@
 :::::::::::: I must also point out that I think we need to worry about the 11-limit before we get too heavily involved in the 13-limit or the 17-limit, and that while it would be great to get to 270 in one go, the sheer complexity of some of these EDOs means we need to break this operation for EDO extensions into distinct phases.  The first phase is where we'll be looking at EDOs up to 171- since 171edo is the largest EDO where a half of a step is greater than the JND of 3.5 cents.  The second phase is the one where we'll be extending from 172 to 270.  Besides, we need to take our time to get stuff right.  Does this make sense? --[[User:Aura|Aura]] ([[User talk:Aura|talk]]) 04:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
+::::::::::::: Ah cool, I'll check out the interval table! Ah yeah grossma probably a good candidate. I think maybe the next-tier extension to SHEFKHED could all [comma]-Wide, [comma]-narrow alterations, since I think names that suggest sizes of adjustment of interval may be exhausted after Super/sub, Up/under and bright/baby. Though interval 'types' only work when applied in a single direction - i.e. classic, undecimal, tridecimal, and Barbados, it can be extended to other commas as in 'classic', where if applied in the 'other' direction it's 'comma-Wide' or 'comma-narrow', giving us 121/64 as the rastmic major seventh, but 243/128 the rastma-Wide major seventh. I'll look at some commas, and larger edos. Yeah indeed 270 might be a lot. I managed to jump from 72 to 270 straight away in my last interval naming system - sized based, Moric, based on the Moria, a single step of 72. I did tredekian, based on the tredek, a single size of 270 - but I guess that was much simpler to extend. --[[User:Lhearne|Lhearne]] ([[User talk:Lhearne|talk]]) 05:17, 3 February 2021 (UTC)