Talk:Kite's color notation: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
:: Now I'm the creator of colorspeak, but I don't want to be a dictator. So this is just one person's opinion. I like option #1. Because adding sev- only gets us a little ways further down the list of primes. The question then becomes, how do you say 83-over? And 97-over? And what about 101, 103, 107 and 109? Just to cover harmonics 64-128 we would need probably 6 new words. And then there's people using harmonics 128-256, and the temptation is to invent even more words. And then you just *know* someone's going to coma along and start talking about how great prime 257 is! So to recap, we have to deal with primes 7 and 17, then the next dozen are pretty easy, then we hit a roadblock, because 71, 73 and 79 are too similar-sounding to 7 and 17. IMO this is a good place for our inevitable surrender to the vast quantity of prime numbers. At least we get harmonics 32-64 all named. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 10:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC) | :: Now I'm the creator of colorspeak, but I don't want to be a dictator. So this is just one person's opinion. I like option #1. Because adding sev- only gets us a little ways further down the list of primes. The question then becomes, how do you say 83-over? And 97-over? And what about 101, 103, 107 and 109? Just to cover harmonics 64-128 we would need probably 6 new words. And then there's people using harmonics 128-256, and the temptation is to invent even more words. And then you just *know* someone's going to coma along and start talking about how great prime 257 is! So to recap, we have to deal with primes 7 and 17, then the next dozen are pretty easy, then we hit a roadblock, because 71, 73 and 79 are too similar-sounding to 7 and 17. IMO this is a good place for our inevitable surrender to the vast quantity of prime numbers. At least we get harmonics 32-64 all named. --[[User:TallKite|TallKite]] ([[User talk:TallKite|talk]]) 10:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC) | ||
== Incorrect formula for converting a color name? == | |||
I wrote some code implementing this page's formula for converting from a color name to a ratio and found that it's apparently wrong in some cases. For example, for "y1" we have S = 0, M = 0, monzo = [a b 1>, X = 16, and so the formula on this page says: b = (2*0 - 2*(16) + 3) mod 7 + 7*0 - 3 = (-29) mod 7 - 3 = 6 - 3 = 3 and a = (0 - 16 - 11*3) / 7 + 0 = -7, but it should be b = -4, a = 4 since "y1" corresponds to 80/81 = [4 -4 1>. The same problem happens with "g1": the formula gives b = 35 mod 7 - 3 = -3 and a = 7, but it should be b = 4, a = -4 since "g1" corresponds to 81/80 = [-4 4 -1>. The only other code implementation of this conversion I could find is [https://github.com/misotanni/jipci/blob/master/jipci.py#L404 in misotanni's jipci], and I confirmed that it does indeed convert "y1" and "g1" incorrectly. | |||
I wasn't able to understand this formula well enough to fix it, but I was able to come up with a new formula that does work in every case. Let Y = the sum of all the known monzo exponents plus 2*(S-X), divided by 7, and rounded off (i.e. the magnitude of [0 2(S-X) c d e ...>). Then, a = -3(S-X) - 11(M-Y) and b = 2(S-X) + 7(M-Y). I found these formulas by directly solving the equations for degree and magnitude for a and b – [https://gist.github.com/m-yac/2236a03dd9fe89a992477fbcbc63746c I wrote up my derivation here]. [[User:M-yac|M-yac]] ([[User talk:M-yac|talk]]) 00:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC) | |||