Talk:Tempered monzos and vals

This page also contains archived Wikispaces discussion.

Unnecessary formalization

The formal definitions given here:

Mathematically, a regular temperament is a homomorphism (a kind of function) from the space of just intervals to the space of tempered intervals generated by that temperament, where both these spaces are abelian groups. Technically, a regular temperament is an equivalence class of functions separated by unimodular transformations, which represent the same temperament.

are completely out of place, and furthermore they are inconsistent with definitions given elsewhere (such as on Mathematical theory of regular temperaments, which I would consider "canonical" despite the many problems of that page). I would just remove them entirely since they don't add anything.

– Sintel🎏 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Battaglia and co have a habit of making a page titled one thing and then making that page about something completely different. (See the history of the radical interval page for another example. ---VectorGraphics (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Care to explain in which way this is inconsistent with Mathematical theory of regular temperaments? In that page a temp is defined as

> A regular temperament is a homomorphism that maps an abelian group of target/pure intervals to another abelian group of tempered intervals.

which seems to say the same thing as the first sentence of what you cited. The second sentence seems to just be saying there's infinitely many eqivalent matrices that represent the same temp.

FloraC (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Kind of a technical point, but the mathematical theory page doesn't say anything about equivalence classes or unimodular transformations. It is kind of implicit though, so maybe we should add that sentence there. Also, it doesn't make clear if we should consider left or right transformations. We generally only consider left transformations. Besides that, there's the question of whether we allow contorsion, which is explicitly not allowed by most definitions.

Anyway, it's kind of besides the point, the definitions should be discussed on a single page instead of being spread out to irrelevant pages.

– Sintel🎏 (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright then. FloraC (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

FloraC Why are you so particular about breadcrumbs?

Or is there a navigational tool you recommend that can help page backlinks but without implying the weird... "philosophy" that you associate with subpages fsr? -- VectorGraphics (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

It's simple, breadcrumbs are for subpages to link back to their main page. A wiki is not hierarchical, so it doesn't make sense on the majority of pages. – Sintel🎏 (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2025 (UTC)