User talk:Lhearne: Difference between revisions

Line 145:

::::::::::::::::::: the diaschismic intervals are like 5-limit super and sub intervals, and when 225/224 is tempered out they are equivalent, but we need it because 225/224 is not always tempered out, and these intervals are relatively simple. --[[User:Lhearne|Lhearne]] ([[User talk:Lhearne|talk]]) 03:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::: For the record, while we do ~~need to support~~ 2.5 and 2.7, and even 2.13 in some ways, I do have questions as to what sorts of simple commas can be used for maintaining well-ordered naming systems for these, as I distinctly remember reading this on the [[Extended-diatonic interval names]] page:

:::::::::::::::::::: For the record, while I do appreciate the idea of supporting 2.5 and 2.7, and even 2.13 in some ways, I do have questions as to what sorts of simple commas can be used for maintaining well-ordered naming systems for these while preserving interval arithmetic, as I distinctly remember reading this on the [[Extended-diatonic interval names]] page:

::::::::::::::::::::"On the other hand, any scheme in which the major third is defined instead as an approximation to 5/4 does not preserve interval arithmetic in non-meantone systems, but may conserve existing associations between interval names and sound / size."

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 ::::::::::::::::::: the diaschismic intervals are like 5-limit super and sub intervals, and when 225/224 is tempered out they are equivalent, but we need it because 225/224 is not always tempered out, and these intervals are relatively simple. --[[User:Lhearne|Lhearne]] ([[User talk:Lhearne|talk]]) 03:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::::::::::::::: For the record, while we do need to support 2.5 and 2.7, and even 2.13 in some ways, I do have questions as to what sorts of simple commas can be used for maintaining well-ordered naming systems for these, as I distinctly remember reading this on the [[Extended-diatonic interval names]] page:
+:::::::::::::::::::: For the record, while I do appreciate the idea of supporting 2.5 and 2.7, and even 2.13 in some ways, I do have questions as to what sorts of simple commas can be used for maintaining well-ordered naming systems for these while preserving interval arithmetic, as I distinctly remember reading this on the [[Extended-diatonic interval names]] page:
 ::::::::::::::::::::"On the other hand, any scheme in which the major third is defined instead as an approximation to 5/4 does not preserve interval arithmetic in non-meantone systems, but may conserve existing associations between interval names and sound / size."