# ARCHIVED WIKISPACES DISCUSSION BELOW

All discussion below is archived from the Wikispaces export in its original unaltered form.
All new discussion should go on Talk:Table of 612edo intervals.

## Typographical change

In the first rows, I marked the specifically new ratios that result from the limit increment. I found that gives this table a "face" - what do you think?

- xenwolf January 31, 2012, 12:25:29 AM UTC-0800

I don't care either way.

- keenanpepper January 31, 2012, 01:23:24 AM UTC-0800

## Intervals shown are too complex

For example, why is 77 steps given as 67108864/61509375 in the 11 limit, rather than 12/11?

- keenanpepper January 30, 2012, 01:03:33 AM UTC-0800

My pocket calculated results are that from 77\612,

• the complex interval differs by 7.342 ct612
• the simple interval has a distance of 17,51 ct612

(ct612 is the relative cent of 612edo == 1\61200 == pow(2, 1/61200))

...of course, in 612edo, the 12/11 ratio is approximated best by 77\612.

- xenwolf January 30, 2012, 01:48:57 AM UTC-0800

Yeah, I know the 612 table is not very good, but I never got around to fixing the reduction routine and thereby fixing the table.

- genewardsmith January 30, 2012, 09:59:30 AM UTC-0800

489 of the 612 11-limit intervals appear in the third-order 11-limit diamond: that is, in diamond(diamond(diamond([1,3,5,7,9,11]))). I'm computing the fourth-order diamond now. This might serve as a basis for a better table.

- genewardsmith January 30, 2012, 11:11:54 AM UTC-0800

Computing the fourth-order diamond was taking too long. The product of the diamond with the third order diamond gives 609 intervals, which should suffice for starters. The five-limit fourth order diamond was easy to compute, and that gives 608 intervals. So I think I can get this done in this manner.

- genewardsmith January 30, 2012, 12:17:49 PM UTC-0800

Looking much better!

- keenanpepper January 30, 2012, 07:51:38 PM UTC-0800

Looking much better!

- keenanpepper January 30, 2012, 07:51:39 PM UTC-0800