Talk:Porcupine family

But porkypine is the canonical extension?

I see no reason why the page should not start with 2.3.5, then go to 2.3.5.11, and then proceed to extensions to 7 and 13.

2.3.5.11-subgroup porcupine ("porkypine") is a canonical extension, so is 7- and 11-limit porcupine. Since porcupine is a full 11-limit temp, there's no reason to pick the subgroups within it instead of simply going 5-, 7-, and 11-limit. FloraC (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but like, it makes no musical sense to restrict porcupine to 2.3.5.7. Does 7 somehow have some inherent priority over 11? --VectorGraphics (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes it does. FloraC (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

How so, given porcupine extensions agree on the mapping for 11 more than they do for 7? --VectorGraphics (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. One gets 7-limit porcupine by tempering 7-limit JI, which makes perfectly valid musical sense. FloraC (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I feel like it's reasonable to categorize that as "11-limit porcupine, but you don't use the intervals of 11". It's more reasonable to start with 11-limit porcupine and remove 11 (Which doesn't require any extra temp data) than to start with 7-limit porcupine and add 11. --VectorGraphics (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Draft of revision

I have a revision draft at User:VectorGraphics/Porcupine_family/Draft_1 -- VectorGraphics (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't studied the whole draft in detail, but on a high level I agree this looks like a better way to organize the extensions. – Sintel🎏 (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This makes it difficult to compare porcupine with other temps. Basically I'm saying the 7-limit, 11-limit, etc. are flatlands where all the systems can be studied and compared. This idea of defining temps on 2.3.5.11 and then adding 7 makes the scene opaque and hard to sort out. FloraC (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2025 (UTC)