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)

Cool. I'm happy to take care of it.

Although... I've just noticed that there are actually five pages that include links of this sort.

So I think the best course of action may be — rather than recognize this situation separately on every such page — centralize this information in one place. And the best way I can think to do that is to create a page called "The wedgie method" which all of these links would now point to, i.e. instead of pointing to "The wedgie". I admit, it does feel odd to create a page for an outstanding mystery rather than an understood topic, but this may be our best choice! The only other idea I can think of is: to make the change to this page as discussed above, then have the other pages link to this page's footnote; that also seems weird to me, and it's not something I've seen done elsewhere before, but let me know if you prefer that.

The primary original author of these pages seems to be Gene Ward Smith, but sadly he is no longer with us to clarify things. So I think the best we can do is optimize the situation so that this gap of understanding in the wiki is easy to discover. That way, when one day it is noticed by someone who does think they understand the method in question for certain, then that person can fill in the explanation. And if I create a new page for it, then when this hypothetical person fills in the gap, their work will already be in a good place. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. It's weird but I don't see a better alternative either. FloraC (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, done. Thanks for your help with this. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)