Talk:3645/3584

Rename

It's too confusing. This is a kind of opposite to 5120/5103 so something along the line of counterargentismic/counteraberschismic could work. —FloraC (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Tritonic diesis

I don't buy this, and can't imagine why, while septimal tritonic diesis on the whole refers to another interval, removing septimal should make it refer to this interval despite both are septimal. Iow if this interval was called tritonic diesis, this would make it septimal tritonic diesis, overloading the term itself. In fact, if you track the history of 50/49, it was originally just tritonic diesis; the septimal modifier was only added later to explicitly mark that it was 7-limit. —FloraC (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hmm, it feels to me much more obvious and natural a name than "schismean comma". I strongly dislike the latter name, while the former couldn't feel more natural to me subjectively s.t potential ambiguity is the only issue. Do you have a better suggestion as to what the diesis-sized comma between (9/8)³ and the tritone-sized LCJI interval 7/5 should be called? And either way, I'd be curious if anyone else objects to this name... --Godtone (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

I also don't fully buy the argument that "tritonic diesis" is reserved, as 50/49 is called the small septimal diesis, and 49/48 is called the large septimal diesis, where the latter is ambiguous with 36/35 which has sometimes been called by the same name. So if anything, either 36/35 is the largest septimal diesis (which intuitively feels at least correct) or 49/48 is to be the medium septimal diesis. It should also maybe be noted that it's smaller than 50/49, s.t we have a small and large (septimal) tritonic diesis (this and 50/49) and a small and large septimal diesis (49/48 and 36/35). --Godtone (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2026 (UTC)