Talk:Catalog of seven-limit rank two temperaments

This page also contains archived Wikispaces discussion.

The "wedgie method"

What is this referring to exactly? The phrasing is ambiguous, and the link just goes to the general page for the wedgie, which is quite long and complex.

So is it perhaps referring to how the TE logflat badness of each these temperaments was obtained? Or is it perhaps referring to how the temperaments themselves were obtained?

If the latter, does it have to do with the stuff about Pfaffians, Grassmanians, etc. in the section Conditions on being a wedgie?

I can see in the edit history that the name "the wedgie method" was only recently added, so I don't get the sense that it's an established thing. But if we're going to say "the wedgie method" here instead of "the method described here", then that begs the question, "as opposed to what other method(s)"? And I just don't know much about this yet and don't see how I would find out more from this information. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I suspect it's this: it's possible to iterate thru all temperaments by complexity using wedgies, and filter out those which are non-temperaments and/or are of high badness. FloraC (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay. But I see in the edit history that it was you who made this change. So I'm confused why you would say that you "suspect" something being the definition of "the wedgie method", when you're the one who created that phrase and therefore get to determine its definition. In any case, if that phrase is going to be used, I think either a) it should either be explained here, or b) where it links, the phrase "the wedgie method" should also be used. Otherwise c) the page should be reverted to how it was before, simply "the method described here". --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

It was "obtained by the method discussed here [wedgie]". I only made the link explicit as all links should be and didn't intend to make any semantic changes. Moreover, do you even see a "method" described in the wedgie page? FloraC (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

No, I don't find the method on the wedgie page. In fact, I checked back through the history of that page, and don't see that such a method was ever described there. So I think you did a good job improving the page, assuming that the previous authors had left things in a reasonable state. But that doesn't appear to be case! So maybe what we should do is edit the page to say "obtained by an unknown method", and then in a footnote explain that the original draft of the page from 2012 included a link out to another page which supposedly explained this method, but that this page (the wedgie) — both at that time and throughout history to this day — never explicitly explained such a method. And then we could include some version of your best guess at what the method might be, as you described above. What do you think? --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That surely makes sense. FloraC (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)