Talk:Douglas Blumeyer's RTT How-To

Unicode Black Star (U+2605)

Technically, all options (★ ★ ★) should be the same: ★ ★ ★ --Xenwolf (talk) 06:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, what do you mean? That I should use ★ instead of ★ for some reason? Or that my table is incorrect and every cell should have three stars? --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I referred to this edit of you with the summary “hopefully superior solution for unicode stars” - these three star variants are technically equivalent, I'd tend to use the star character (★) itself via copy&paste, but your solution is maybe easier to type if the number is memorized. The best would be to include it into the Specials characters tab of the editing toolbar, here is a section Symbols that already contains things like ↔ ↑ ↓ ← →... --Xenwolf (talk) 20:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah-ha, got it. Actually, copy-pasting ★ in was what I did initially, I believe, but it turned out not to be supported on my iPhone as well as whatever browser my first critic was using when he reviewed the page. So I took a guess at ★ and it seemed to fix the problem so I thought "good enough". I never noticed the Special characters tab before, actually, so thanks for pointing that out. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is an update which might help you. I added two symbols ★ and ☆ to the Special characters → Symbols section of the the editing toolbar. Now you can just click/touch to enter them (it's likely that you need a browser refresh before, I used Ctrl+F5 for Windows/Firefox). --Xenwolf (talk) 16:04, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I tried using this star instead and it does seem to still work on my mobile device. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"regular"

The article says:

> We’ve made it to a critical point here: we are now able to explain why RTT is called “regular” temperament theory. Regular here is a mathematical term, and I don’t have a straightforward definition of it for you, but it apparently refers to the fact that all intervals in the tuning are combinations of only these specified generators. So there you go.

As far as i know, regular here isn't a mathematical term at all. (If I'm wrong please point me to the right definition!) It seems like it was chosen to mean "linear" but "linear temperament" already means something else.

- Sintel (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Back in April I asked for the meaning of the "regular" in RTT and I got various answers. From Keenan Pepper, a couple:

'It's regular because wherever two tempered intervals represent the same JI interval, they are exactly the same size. This means the temperament is an abelian group and the mapping is a morphism.'

'Once a tuning of each generator is provided the tuning of any interval can be computed as an integer linear combination of generator tunings. This property that all intervals are linear combinations of the generators is in fact what makes a temperament "regular".'

Then, from Paul Erlich:

'Every generator always appears in (close enough to) the same size; and every instance of a prime is arrived at via generators in EXACTLY the same way.'

to which Keenan replied:

'Oh, this is interesting because it's slightly different from the definition I gave. I suppose what I defined could be called a "regular tuning of a regular temperament". An example that passes your definition but not mine is a well-temperament of 12edo. The generators are slightly different sizes, but the mapping is still regular (it's only the realization in tuning that is irregular).'

And then Mike Battaglia said:

'Keenan Pepper I don't think the tunings have to be the same size; rather the mapping has to be the same. Graham Breed and I were just talking about this'

and Paul felt that was the same thing as his definition.

So maybe it's not a mathematical term after all. Probably this tidbit could stand to be updated. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)