Talk:Kite's thoughts on fifthspans

About ringy confusion

The word ringy looks confusing, at least from my perspective: it's not clear why it should mean multi-ring instead of single-ring. Wouldn't it be better to stick to the single-ring vs. multi-ring distinction? --Xenwolf (talk) 16:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ringy applies to multi-ring edos not single-ring edos for the same reason you usually don't refer to a room in a single-story house as being on the ground floor. If you're talking about floors, you're talking about a multi-story house. If you're talking about rings, you're talking about a multi-ring edo. Because in a single-ring edo, the subject never comes up.

That said, "ringy" is not as obvious as "multi-ring", and I don't mind removing most uses of it in the fifthspan article. But I do want to mention the word once. Because even though we use language to communicate precise scientific/mathematical ideas, it's also true that language itself is an artform. IMO it actually shares a lot with music, as it has rhythm and melody, and timbre is supplied by vowel sounds. Ringy is concise, memorable, catchy, and fun to say. It's like a hooky pop chorus. It would be a shame not to include it in the article. unsigned contribution by: TallKite, 20:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I expected that there was a good explanation. The problem I have reported seems to affect mainly people who are not native English speakers. I think the changes you made removed the confusion. --Xenwolf (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Fifthward and fourthward distances for multi-ring EDOs?

It occurred to me that it should be possible to define fifthward and fourthward distances for multi-ring EDOs if fractional distances are allowed. For instance, 34EDO has 2 rings of fifths, so with only integer fifthwards and fourthwards distances, the fifthwards/fourthwards antipode is undefined. But if we divide the perfect fifth (20\34) in 4 (5\34), we get the odd number of 1\34 increments we need to move between rings of fifths. Then we can define a fifthward distance for any interval in 34EDO, for instance its best approximation to 5/4, which is 11\34: Moving upwards by 9 quarter-fifths (9/4 fifths) gives us 45\34, which octave-reduces to 11\34. Since Tetracot divides the (tempered) perfect fifth into 4 equal parts, this provides a reason why the Tetracot generalized/isomorphic keyboard mapping is a good one for making use o the excellent 5-limit harmony of 34EDO.

Lucius Chiaraviglio (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)