Re: [tuning-math] Re: Hypothesis revisited

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: D.Stearns <STEARNS@...>
> To: <tuning-math@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 12:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [tuning-math] Re: Hypothesis revisited
>
>
> Hi Dave,
>
> <<The basic requirement remains the same: One algorithm for
> _generating_ linear temperaments and another to _filter_ out the
> trash.>>
>
> I understand the point your making here -- it's a further refinement
> of the same point Graham just made about elegance v. inelegance -- and
> even agree to an extent. I also know "trash" is pretty much just some
> random sample of an innocuous bit of jargon, even technical jargon if
> one is so inclined... so everything I'm about to say probably
> shouldn't be taken to grimly.

Hi Dan,

I feel badly that you took this statement so strongly.

You're exactly correct here that "trash", as Dave used it,
is simply a programmer's way of referring to something that
is not part of the desired output. Actually, the more
common term is "garbage".

I read the rest of your post with interest, but I'm sure
that you needn't get so upset by it. Dave and Graham
are ironing out an algorithm for discovering tunings
and certain properties they possess, and "trash" is simply
something that's an undesirable, and apparently to some
extent unavoidable, part of the algorithm.

Hope that helps.

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com