Talk:Mapping to lattice
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Questions
You've taken this
| g₁ | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| g₂ | -3 | 7/1 | |||
| -2 | |||||
| -1 | |||||
| 0 | 2/1 | 3/1 | |||
| 1 | 5/1 | ||||
and rotated/flipped/sheared it, converting it to this
| g₁ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | ||
| g₂ | 0 | 2/1 | 7/1 | |||
| 1 | 5/1 | 3/1 | ||||
This is a valid lattice, but why is it better than the original one, or any of the other possibilities? What is the exact method for finding the best lattice?
--TallKite (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure, sorry. I didn't come up with the concept and I'm not a fan of it. It just bothered me that it was never explained anywhere. --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- One theory is that it uses the Minkowski lattice basis, explained in the rank-3 temperament page. Still it's not fundamentally different from the mapping as we've discussed on Discord, so this piece of information is a little bit redundant without providing much insight. I remember a few of us have proposed removing it from the temp catalog pages. What do you think? FloraC (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree it adds little value (possibly negative value), and so I support not including it in a temperament template. But I believe it's generally not a good idea to straight up delete information from the wiki that someone might find useful. So perhaps we could consider centralizing all the existing map-to-lattice information in one place? --Cmloegcmluin (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)