Talk:256/255

comma name proposal: "charisma"

What about "charisma" from "char"+"isma"? Suggested by Starshine on XA Discord. In programming, a char is, in modern usage, practically almost always an 8-bit byte. Therefore 2^8 = 256 is the number of values it can hold and 255 is the maximum (unsigned) integer value, hence 256/255. "bytisma" was suggested by Fumica to avoid naming conflict with the temperament of the same name "Charisma" in the magic family, which has an extension named "Charismic". However, the name "Charisma" for a temperament defies the intuitive implicit rule that something ending in "-isma" must be a comma and they seem to me to be very low-accuracy temperaments anyways so seem not to be of note/significance as temperaments as opposed to as scale blueprint patterns (as exotemperaments do have legitimate serious uses, just not insomuch for convincing harmony, but rather as interesting mappings). Therefore we also propose renaming "Charisma" and "Charismic" to something else. --Godtone (talk) 15:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

I want to add that "diasemisma" is also, IMO, a slightly confusing name as 289/288 which also seems to have claim to the same name reasoning is called the "semitonisma", except in the case of 289/288 the corresponding whole tone is 9/8 but here it is 17/15. Also, associating the terms "charisma" and "charismic" with Harry Potter seems very unnecessary to me. --Godtone (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I second this. "Char" is a recognizable programming term and "-isma" is a common postfix for commas not temperaments. --Frostburn (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I also agree. But there need to be new names for Charisma and Charismic before doing this. I don't have ideas myself, other than calling Charisma the cookie-cutter "Undecimal horcrux". CompactStar (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

In that case, I propose "tridecimal horcrux" and "septendecimal horcrux" for 13-limit and 17-limit charisma respectively, and "horcruxic" for "charismic". This also has the advantage of being very straightforward and easy to memorise without undermining the naming theme. --Godtone (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I concur with the cookie-cutter names, but "charmstone" seems to be available if we wish to preserve a passing resemblance to "charisma" or "charismic". --Frostburn (talk) 20:51, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m usually not a part of comma process but I very much find this a cool name. --Arseniiv (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yet another reason to rename: this sort of clarification should not be needed and it would avoid such a confusing usage of terms: "it is unrelated to the diasem scale structure." --Godtone (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)