Clipped genera

One of Paul's (and where the hell is he, by the way?) less favorite
ideas is odd height. The odd height is where you take the odd part of
the Tenney height, which is the product of the numerator and
denominator of a fraction in reduced form. Here we give it a use.

If n is the odd height of a comma c, then genus(n) will have only one
instance of two elements separated by c mod octaves. We then can
produce two clipped versions of genus(n), by removing one or the
other. Again, these will be inversely related scales. Hence any comma
gives rise to its own pair of clippers.

81/80, for instance, has an odd height of 405. Genus(405) has ten
notes, with 5/4 and 81/64 separated by 81/80, removing one or the
other of these gives the two clippers, which are nine note scales.

>One of Paul's (and where the hell is he, by the way?)

I hope I don't piss him or you off by saying this, but I
think he's avoiding you.

Whatever the reason, though, Paul's been on these lists
for a long time, and I think he could probably benefit
from a spot of retirement. It looks like he's going to
start making some microtonal music with the time it
frees up.

>less favorite ideas is odd height. The odd height is
>where you take the odd part of the Tenney height, which
>is the product of the numerator and denominator of a
>fraction in reduced form. Here we give it a use.
>
>If n is the odd height of a comma c, then genus(n) will
>have only one instance of two elements separated by c mod
>octaves. We then can produce two clipped versions of
>genus(n), by removing one or the other. Again, these will
>be inversely related scales. Hence any comma gives rise
>to its own pair of clippers.
>
>81/80, for instance, has an odd height of 405. Genus(405)
>has ten notes, with 5/4 and 81/64 separated by 81/80,
>removing one or the other of these gives the two clippers,
>which are nine note scales.

Ok, I see what you're doing here.

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >One of Paul's (and where the hell is he, by the way?)
>
> I hope I don't piss him or you off by saying this, but I
> think he's avoiding you.

It's very depressing, if true. Here I am coming up with ideas day
after day, and the reaction of the tuning-math gang is that I should
be avoided at all costs?

> Whatever the reason, though, Paul's been on these lists
> for a long time, and I think he could probably benefit
> from a spot of retirement. It looks like he's going to
> start making some microtonal music with the time it
> frees up.

That would be good. Maybe I should say the hell with it and do more of
that also, but then I suppose that would get kicked around also.

>> >One of Paul's (and where the hell is he, by the way?)
>>
>> I hope I don't piss him or you off by saying this, but I
>> think he's avoiding you.
>
>It's very depressing, if true.

Yeah. I think the clincher was the conversation where you
said something about Gene and his merry bandits (which I
took as a joke), and he said he wasn't going to be in your
cast of characters much longer. I don't know why he got
so upset, but I think he felt you were ignoring his
questions on this forum, and I have been very frustrated
trying to communicate with you myself (though you are not
unique in this regard). But I don't want to speak for Paul,
and my guess is there are a probably a number of different
factors in his life that led to this leave of absence.

>Here I am coming up with ideas day
>after day, and the reaction of the tuning-math gang is that
>I should be avoided at all costs?

We're not talking about the gang, we're talking about Paul.

>> Whatever the reason, though, Paul's been on these lists
>> for a long time, and I think he could probably benefit
>> from a spot of retirement. It looks like he's going to
>> start making some microtonal music with the time it
>> frees up.
>
>That would be good. Maybe I should say the hell with it and
>do more of that also, but then I suppose that would get
>kicked around also.

Don't know what you mean.

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Yeah. I think the clincher was the conversation where you
> said something about Gene and his merry bandits (which I
> took as a joke), and he said he wasn't going to be in your
> cast of characters much longer.

I don't have a clue what that is about, and the tuning-math archives
turn up no hits for "bandit" or "bandits".

I don't know why he got
> so upset, but I think he felt you were ignoring his
> questions on this forum, and I have been very frustrated
> trying to communicate with you myself (though you are not
> unique in this regard).

I could not be answering questions for various reasons; the most
obvious being (did no one think of this?) that I don't know the
answer. Sometimes I don't answer immediately, and fail to get back to
it. Often, I suspect, I overlook things. I prefer, in any case, not be
be regarded as a sort of malfunctioning programmable device.

> >That would be good. Maybe I should say the hell with it and
> >do more of that also, but then I suppose that would get
> >kicked around also.
>
> Don't know what you mean.

I mean being told I am an amateur and a dabbler. Considering most of
us are amateur dabblers, I really wonder why that is an acceptable
criticism to make.

>> Yeah. I think the clincher was the conversation where you
>> said something about Gene and his merry bandits (which I
>> took as a joke), and he said he wasn't going to be in your
>> cast of characters much longer.
>
>I don't have a clue what that is about, and the tuning-math archives
>turn up no hits for "bandit" or "bandits".

Bandits wasn't the word, but if you don't remember that conversation
your memory must be worse than I thought. And IIRC it was on
metatuning.

>I don't know why he got
>> so upset, but I think he felt you were ignoring his
>> questions on this forum, and I have been very frustrated
>> trying to communicate with you myself (though you are not
>> unique in this regard).
>
>I could not be answering questions for various reasons; the most
>obvious being (did no one think of this?) that I don't know the
>answer.

It took me a long time to consider this possibility. It's hard
to tell the limits of magic, magic being what it is. But if you
don't know, why not say so instead of ignoring the question?
Also, sometimes an answer isn't even as good as a suggestion, or
just some kind generic kind of feedback, first impression, etc.

>Sometimes I don't answer immediately, and fail to get back to
>it. Often, I suspect, I overlook things. I prefer, in any case,
>not be be regarded as a sort of malfunctioning programmable
>device.

I sympathize.

>> >That would be good. Maybe I should say the hell with it and
>> >do more of that also, but then I suppose that would get
>> >kicked around also.
>>
>> Don't know what you mean.
>
>I mean being told I am an amateur and a dabbler. Considering most
>of us are amateur dabblers, I really wonder why that is an
>acceptable criticism to make.

I don't recall Paul or I ever making this accusation.

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> >I mean being told I am an amateur and a dabbler. Considering most
> >of us are amateur dabblers, I really wonder why that is an
> >acceptable criticism to make.
>
> I don't recall Paul or I ever making this accusation.

You didn't.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> Bandits wasn't the word, but if you don't remember that conversation
> your memory must be worse than I thought. And IIRC it was on
> metatuning.

Paul did say he was "outta here" after arguing with you and Aaron, but
not me, about relativity. But he came back not too long ago to say
things looked bright on MMM.

My memory is strange. When Joe McBride interviewed me for his
biography of Steven Spielberg, he told me my memory was uncanny; but
that is because I thought he was so interesting. If someone does
something which I don't understand I can easily forget about it,
becauase I have no meaning to attach to it.

> It took me a long time to consider this possibility. It's hard
> to tell the limits of magic, magic being what it is. But if you
> don't know, why not say so instead of ignoring the question?

I could not know, but think that thinking about it might get me
somewhere. Maybe I did and it didn't.

>My memory is strange. When Joe McBride interviewed me for his
>biography of Steven Spielberg, he told me my memory was uncanny; but
>that is because I thought he was so interesting. If someone does
>something which I don't understand I can easily forget about it,
>becauase I have no meaning to attach to it.

You knew Spielberg?

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> You knew Spielberg?

We were pals, but I haven't seen him in 40 years nor heard from him in
15. You can read all about it in the "Hell on Earth" chapter in Steven
Spielberg: A Biography. To give one example of the kind of thing I
could recall, there was the question of whether he was born in 1946 or
1947. I recalled that when by birthday came around, I mentioned that
to him, and we found he was a year, less three weeks, older than
me--hence, 1946. A trip to Cincinnati and a check of his birth
certificate confirmed it, though Joe suspected it was true already.

>> You knew Spielberg?
>
>We were pals, but I haven't seen him in 40 years nor heard from him in
>15. You can read all about it in the "Hell on Earth" chapter in Steven
>Spielberg: A Biography. To give one example of the kind of thing I
>could recall, there was the question of whether he was born in 1946 or
>1947. I recalled that when by birthday came around, I mentioned that
>to him, and we found he was a year, less three weeks, older than
>me--hence, 1946. A trip to Cincinnati and a check of his birth
>certificate confirmed it, though Joe suspected it was true already.

I'm pretty sure I'd rather have Spielberg do a biography on you
than the other way around.

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> I'm pretty sure I'd rather have Spielberg do a biography on you
> than the other way around.

The scary part is that he has sometimes been claimed, by pop
psychologists, as a case of Asperger's syndrome. But if he was, I
certainly was. It all goes to prove that that strange, geeky guy you
teased in school might grow up to be famous and a billionaire and then
you'll feel ashamed--but he probably won't.

If Steve did a bio it would be a movie, of course; he sort of did that
with Schindler's List, actually.

>> I'm pretty sure I'd rather have Spielberg do a biography on you
>> than the other way around.
>
>The scary part is that he has sometimes been claimed, by pop
>psychologists, as a case of Asperger's syndrome.

I saw that. As near as I can tell, Asperger's runs the gamut from
undetectable to noticeably autistic. I don't know if there are
any real diagnosis tools for it.

>If Steve did a bio it would be a movie, of course; he sort of did
>that with Schindler's List, actually.

I wouldn't call Schindler's a bio, but it is one of three
Spielberg films I've seen that don't suck.

-Carl