From Xenharmonic Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


User:PiotrGrochowski - This 0/0 expression really doesn't play much into current tuning theory. I don't even know how we would fit it in or what to write about it. If you have a thought about something to put here then feel free, but from the perspective of "incomplete pages," the current theory doesn't really have anything in it about 0/0. Mike Battaglia (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

It's for completeness! PiotrGrochowski (talk) 17:16, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Is there anything you want to put on this page? If not, then I don't know whether we need this page, since we don't use it in the theory for anything. Mike Battaglia (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
We need it, though. It is the ratio between a note and a noise. It is important. PiotrGrochowski (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Does a frequency of 0 represent noise? If so, then 0/0 represents the ratio between noise and noise, but not a note and noise. If not, then 0/0 has nothing to do with the ratio between a note and noise. And even if 0/0 were to be assumed to represent the ratio between a note and noise, what can you do with it? If the answer is nothing, then this representation is trivial. --Bozu (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
A frequency of 0 represents DC in terms of electrical signals or the halting of vibration in terms of mechanical systems (think of your car's engine turning at 0 rpm). Either is percieved as silence. Noise is the sum of all frequencies within a certain band. If the intensity is uniform across those frequencies, it is White noise. (Other named types include Brownian noise and Pink noise). As for 0/0, it is called an Indeterminate form because it can take on any value depending on how you use it: Say [math]x = 0 \div 0[/math]. This can be written as [math]0 \times x = 0[/math]. Any value of [math]x[/math] will satisfy this equation. (But, see also: Transreal arithmetic.) I don't believe 0/0 has any meaningful use in terms of tuning theory, but if it really has appeared in some literature (and apparently generated some confusion), it seems worthwhile to have a short article. Oak Blood Three () 15:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. But "if it really has appeared in some literature (and apparently generated some confusion), it seems worthwhile to have a short article" makes no case for this article in the case where no literature nor any outside link is cited in the article itself. I'd say that if you know of such a source, add it to the article to provide meaningful context. Otherwise, the article seems to serve no purpose aside from generating further confusion. --Bozu (talk) 15:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Bozu: I should give a little personal context: I just joined the wiki yesterday so I was being cautious with my edits. I saw this article on the list at Wikifuture, so I expanded it a bit with the basic mathematical description and Wikipedia link. I have personally never seen 0/0 outside the typical mathematical contexts I mentioned above, but I got the impression from the discussion above, that it had been used in some other way. As for whether the article stays, I would say, "I have no dog in that race." Oak Blood Three () 19:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The current revision (as of 13:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)) looks good to me. Bozu (talk)
I agree there's not much point to this article - I'll delete it if nobody cares. Mike Battaglia (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)