Talk:Kite's color notation: Difference between revisions
fix typo, tweak reply |
m yet another reply tweak |
||
| Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
: Your broader use of the term negative to include descending is mathematically sound. 49/50 is a (positive) zzgg2. It also reduces (eliminates?) invalid color names, which is nice. But negative intervals are different than descending ones, and IMO it's nice to distinguish between them. They feel different. Descending intervals are commonplace and straightforward, but negative intervals only apply to certain JI commas. My narrower usage of negative functions as a warning that interval arithmetic works counter-intuitively. And the concept of descending intervals is well understood and doesn't require a new term like negative. So I think the narrower use of negative is better for pedagogical purposes. | : Your broader use of the term negative to include descending is mathematically sound. 49/50 is a (positive) zzgg2. It also reduces (eliminates?) invalid color names, which is nice. But negative intervals are different than descending ones, and IMO it's nice to distinguish between them. They feel different. Descending intervals are commonplace and straightforward, but negative intervals only apply to certain JI commas. My narrower usage of negative functions as a warning that interval arithmetic works counter-intuitively. And the concept of descending intervals is well understood and doesn't require a new term like negative. So I think the narrower use of negative is better for pedagogical purposes. | ||
:: I very much agree with your assessment that just including the word "negative" and not mentioning whether or not the interval is descending could be very misleading. (You writing out those four cases was very helpful!) I've since added an extra line to the output of xen-calc when the interval is descending, e.g. https://www.yacavone.net/xen-calc/?q=49/50. I am still going to keep the old output though, both because of my "how the interval functions" argument above and because of the fact that the "descending" qualifier has no canonical place in the syntax of color notation (e.g. the only name I can give | :: I very much agree with your assessment that just including the word "negative" and not mentioning whether or not the interval is descending could be very misleading. (You writing out those four cases was very helpful!) I've since added an extra line to the output of xen-calc when the interval is descending, e.g. https://www.yacavone.net/xen-calc/?q=49/50. I am still going to keep the old output though, both because of my "how the interval functions" argument above and because of the fact that the "descending" qualifier has no canonical place in the syntax of color notation (e.g. the only name I can give 5/7 that satisfies all the descriptions on this page is "ry-5"). Perhaps you could add it, though? e.g. "dzg5" or "dezogu 5th" for 5/7? --[[User:M-yac|M-yac]] ([[User talk:M-yac|talk]]) 03:47, 2 August 2021 (UTC) | ||
: Another objection: I see that xen-calc calls 4/5 a gu negative 3rd. Playing a note and adding a note 5/4 below it makes a yo harmony with a distinctly 5-over sound. If we call that interval a gu negative 3rd, that implies a 5-under sound. Sure, you can deduce from the term negative that the color is inverted, but that's extra mental work. I'd rather say the added note is a yo 3rd below the 1st note than a negative gu 3rd above it. | : Another objection: I see that xen-calc calls 4/5 a gu negative 3rd. Playing a note and adding a note 5/4 below it makes a yo harmony with a distinctly 5-over sound. If we call that interval a gu negative 3rd, that implies a 5-under sound. Sure, you can deduce from the term negative that the color is inverted, but that's extra mental work. I'd rather say the added note is a yo 3rd below the 1st note than a negative gu 3rd above it. | ||