# 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:Val.

## "h12"

Go get consensus on the new shorthand notation on tuning before changing this page. There are at least 4-5 people who have been using the wart notation specifically as described and we've been doing it this way for months now. It makes no sense to change the whole thing up on a whim.

And besides, this "h12" thing makes no sense. I like Gene's proposal of just using "12" better.

- mbattaglia1 December 27, 2011, 11:03:52 PM UTC-0800

Change it on a whim to what? What, exactly, are we talking about?

- genewardsmith December 27, 2011, 11:21:48 PM UTC-0800

Carl edited this page and the "Keenan's explanation of Vals" page to remove all instances of the "12p" notation where the "p" wart is taken to represent the patent val, and replaced them with "h12." So instead of 7p & 12p being meantone it's now h7 & h12.

The discussion about all of this took place back on tuning-math in April, including the use of "p" for "patent." Since then, the system has been, a patent val can be specified by a number itself, e.g. 12 & 19, or it can be specified by a number plus "p", e.g. 12p & 19p. Some people have preferred to leave the "p" off and others have preferred to use it. There are a few of us who have chosen to use it. For my part I've been posting to tuning-math with that notation, and teaching people on XA that notation, and using it in XA chat that way for months now, and heard no objections about it.

If we now want to bar the use of "p" for "patent," which may be a good idea, then let's come up with a sensible alternative before just putting something random up. For example, Carl's proposed alternative of "h12," which I assume you invented years ago to stand for "homomorphism 12," may not be ideal if we're going to also use Herman's postfix letter notation. A better alternative to "12p" would be your proposal of just using "12." Another good alternative is Herman's "12a," which was in his original scheme before Graham made it 12p.

- mbattaglia1 December 27, 2011, 11:54:33 PM UTC-0800

My suggestion is not to use "p" unless it is needed, and since so far as I can see it never is needed, we could let it fade quietly away. Then, if someone wanted to talk about the 53-limit, they could.

- genewardsmith December 28, 2011, 11:50:13 AM UTC-0800

The only reason I think something like "p" is useful is because sometimes people just throw the bare number around to mean the best val. So for those people, it's useful to be able to say "7p" and know unambiguously that you're talking about the patent val.

If we could get people to stop making the bare number mean the best val, that would be nice. I've never liked it and doubly so because it's dependent on an assumed error metric, and should we ever come up with something besides TE to use then all of the "best vals" might change.

- mbattaglia1 December 28, 2011, 11:56:02 AM UTC-0800

I think we should just ignore it to death. What the hell is someone going to do if they want to talk about the 71-limit, do you know? I think 101 is a safer place to stop than 53.

- genewardsmith December 28, 2011, 12:08:50 PM UTC-0800

## Silly vals

I'd be careful labeling a val "silly", which suggests you know no possible use could ever be found for it. Your example <12 19 28 33| is the sharptone val for 12edo, and if you find the corresponding dwarf scale, it's quite different from the one for the patent val. That's two uses right there.

- genewardsmith September 28, 2011, 09:36:43 AM UTC-0700

OK, I changed it.

- mbattaglia1 September 28, 2011, 10:23:50 AM UTC-0700

## Definition of a val

My problem with your approach is that you start by saying "A val is a map representing how the intervals in an equal temperament..." and as you very well know, this is wrong. Vals do not need to be about equal temperaments at all.

- genewardsmith September 04, 2011, 06:08:38 AM UTC-0700

Sorry, I meant to change that but forgot. This is a much shorter version of what I originally wrote. I spent so much time on this article and went through so many iterations of it that at like 4 AM I finally gave up and just posted what I had.

I changed it to link to an article called "generator" that hasn't been written. Does this look better?

- mbattaglia1 September 04, 2011, 05:01:06 PM UTC-0700