Talk:Superpyth

5-limit superpyth?

I'm confused. Why is there no mention of the actual superpyth comma on this page?

According to the commas pages, the superpyth comma is 20480/19683, [12 -9 1⟩, 68.719¢. There's no dedicated page for this comma yet, but that is how it appears on the PTS diagram, and also how it is recognized in Graham Breed's temperament tool: http://x31eq.com/cgi-bin/uv.cgi?limit=5&uvs=%5B12%2C-9%2C1%3E.

I see that on the Tour of Regular Temperaments page a distinction is drawn between superpyth and suprapyth; you maybe don't get superpyth until you enter the 7-limit. But then shouldn't the 5-limit comma [12 -9 1⟩ be called the "suprapyth comma"? And does that mean the PTS diagram and Graham's tool need to be updated?

But wait - the distinction between suprapyth and superpyth is different as described on this page, relating to something in the 11-limit!

Maybe there's a bit of a mess here that has arisen from a failure to establish consensus around these names over the years. To be clear: I don't have a horse in the race. I just came here to add the valid tuning range for the 5-limit superpyth temperament as seen on PTS, but I discovered that there wasn't even a 5-limit superpyth temperament entry (with generators, vals, etc.) existing in the first place. So many we need some general consistency, and also for that temperament to find some place to exist.

--Cmloegcmluin (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You're wrong about superpyth vs suprapyth. The 5-limit temperament is called "superpyth", and so is the 7-limit one, and back in the day the accepted way to name things was that only one extension to the higher limit (in this case 11-limit) gets the unaltered name. Usually a rather high-accuracy/high-complexity one was chosen. So in this case there's a complex mapping of 11 that's called "superpyth" and a simpler, higher-error mapping of 11 that's called "suprapyth". —Keenan Pepper (talk) 22:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)