Session at math conference?

I am new to this group, and I am still getting up to speed, but I am
finding the reading fascinating. My experience here brings to mind a
couple of ideas, though. The first is that this would be good
material for a contributed paper session at the AMS/MAA Joint
Mathematics Meetings. It's too late to get a session for the meetings
this January in San Antonio, of course, but if there is enough
interest, we could get a session ready for the meetings in January
2007. I have some experience organizing sessions -- I am a
co-organizer of an unrelated MAA contributed paper session in San
Antonio, and we have done this session for the past two years as well.
I can at least lead the administrative part of the task. I would
want some help from someone more experienced in the topic, though, so
that I don't overlook good material out of my own inexperience. If
there is enough interest in doing this, the time to start putting it
together is now, though, because a proposal needs to go to the
appropriate MAA committee in December for the committee to review when
it meets in January. I would certainly want to include some language
in the proposal and description of the session encouraging "sound
demonstrations." The 2007 meetings are planned for New Orleans --
perhaps musically appropriate, but recent events may cast some doubt
on those plans.

My second idea, and one that I probably wouldn't be much help with, is
that this subject seems ripe for a "handbook" treatment -- that is, a
published collection of advanced expository articles or essays, with
sort of a tacit eye to stabilizing some of the terminology and
notation. The Tonalsoft "encyclopedia" is good as far as it goes, but
I am finding it to be somewhat spotty; the related Wikipedia articles
just aren't very deep. I'm sure my experience, having some difficulty
finding references to bring me up to speed, is not unique.

So is there enough interest in a contributed paper session for me to
start drafting a proposal? And would anyone else be interested in
following up on the "handbook" idea?

Regards,
Tom Leathrum

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "leathrum" <leathrum@j...> wrote:

> So is there enough interest in a contributed paper session for me to
> start drafting a proposal? And would anyone else be interested in
> following up on the "handbook" idea?

There are more than enough ideas floating around on this group to make
for a paper; it would be quite easy to get a book out of it, if there
was a publisher for it. Which things did you have in mind for a paper?
Certainly, the theory of regular temperaments which has been developed
on this group is ripe for one.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "leathrum" <leathrum@j...> wrote:
>
> > So is there enough interest in a contributed paper session for me to
> > start drafting a proposal? And would anyone else be interested in
> > following up on the "handbook" idea?
>
> There are more than enough ideas floating around on this group to make
> for a paper; it would be quite easy to get a book out of it, if there
> was a publisher for it. Which things did you have in mind for a paper?
> Certainly, the theory of regular temperaments which has been developed
> on this group is ripe for one.

I guess I need to bring you up to speed on math conference
terminology. A contributed paper session would have perhaps a dozen
people each giving a 15-minute talk on their favorite topic, but being
at a math conference, the emphasis would be on the math. Like I said,
I would specifically try to encourage sound demos of whatever flavor.

The handbook idea is a much bigger project -- picture a volume
containing perhaps a dozen or so extended, advanced expository
articles, each written by different people and on different topics,
trying in particular to cover the breadth of the field and work out
good terminology and notation. So there might be one person writing
about Riemann zeta-function tunings, one person writing about log2(p)
expansions and tunings from that, one person writing about musical set
theory, one person writing about monzos and vectors in primespace, one
person writing about lattice representations of tunings, etc. Of
course, there is bound to be overlap in these topics, and it would be
the job of a good editor to make sure that the connections are made in
the articles.

Regards,
Tom Leathrum

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "leathrum" <leathrum@j...> wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:

> I guess I need to bring you up to speed on math conference
> terminology. A contributed paper session would have perhaps a dozen
> people each giving a 15-minute talk on their favorite topic, but being
> at a math conference, the emphasis would be on the math.

So I understand, but where are all of these mathematicians?

> The handbook idea is a much bigger project -- picture a volume
> containing perhaps a dozen or so extended, advanced expository
> articles, each written by different people and on different topics,
> trying in particular to cover the breadth of the field and work out
> good terminology and notation.

Written for what sort of audience? Paul Erlich has a paper where he
explains some of the basics in this new regular temperament theory for
musicians, which is hardly the same as an exposition for a
mathematical audience. My web site's theory pages could be expanded to
a sort of handbook, but so far not much interest has been shown in them.

> Tom Leathrum

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "leathrum" <leathrum@j...>
wrote:
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...>
> > wrote:
>
> > I guess I need to bring you up to speed on math conference
> > terminology. A contributed paper session would have perhaps a
dozen
> > people each giving a 15-minute talk on their favorite topic, but
being
> > at a math conference, the emphasis would be on the math.
>
> So I understand, but where are all of these mathematicians?
>
> > The handbook idea is a much bigger project -- picture a volume
> > containing perhaps a dozen or so extended, advanced expository
> > articles, each written by different people and on different
topics,
> > trying in particular to cover the breadth of the field and work
out
> > good terminology and notation.
>
> Written for what sort of audience? Paul Erlich has a paper where he
> explains some of the basics in this new regular temperament theory
for
> musicians, which is hardly the same as an exposition for a
> mathematical audience.

Unfortunately, even the latest version of the paper proved
impenetrable for those without a strong math background. So I hope
Tom will let me send it to him!

Tom Leathran wrote:

> I am new to this group, and I am still getting up to speed, but I am > finding the reading fascinating. My experience here brings to mind a > couple of ideas, though. The first is that this would be good material > for a contributed paper session at the AMS/MAA Joint Mathematics > Meetings.

Hi Tom - there's a good precedent for such a session. Robert Peck co-organised a regional AMS session in Baton Rouge on math & music in 2003, and followed up with another session in the national conference in Phoenix in 2004. I'm not sure if he did it again in 2005. He invited proposals as widely as he was able to - but this wasn't wide enough to include the tuning-math crowd. I'm sure you could find abstracts for those sessions in the AMS archives, though I'm not sure how interesting they'd be to members of the tuning-math community.

There is also expected to be an announcement soon of a new journal: mathematics & computation in music theory, or some such title. It sounds like an ideal place for a formal presentation of some of the ideas that get knocked around here.

--Jon Wild

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Jon Wild <wild@m...> wrote:

> There is also expected to be an announcement soon of a new journal:
> mathematics & computation in music theory, or some such title. It
sounds
> like an ideal place for a formal presentation of some of the ideas that
> get knocked around here.

Do you know who is behind that? A mathemarically oriented music
journal would be very nice.

>Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 23:32:39 -0000
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
>Subject: Re: Session at math conference?
>
>--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Jon Wild <wild@m...> wrote:
>
>> There is also expected to be an announcement soon of a new journal: >> mathematics & computation in music theory, or some such title. It >> sounds like an ideal place for a formal presentation of some of the >> ideas that get knocked around here.
>
> Do you know who is behind that? A mathemarically oriented music
> journal would be very nice.

The group steering it, last I heard, included American and European researchers who presented at the AMS sessions in Baton Rouge and Phoenix. (I was at those sessions but didn't participate in the journal discussion.) I believe - but I can't find the info now - the group volunteering to start things up included Thomas Noll, Moreno Andreatti, Ian Quinn, perhaps Robert Peck too.

Regards - Jon

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Jon Wild <wild@m...> wrote:
>
> >
> >> There is also expected to be an announcement soon of a new
> >> journal:
> >> mathematics & computation in music theory, or some such title.
> >> It sounds like an ideal place for a formal presentation of some
> >> of the ideas that get knocked around here.
> >
> > Do you know who is behind that? A mathemarically oriented music
> > journal would be very nice.
>
> The group steering it, last I heard, included American and
> European researchers who presented at the AMS sessions in Baton
> Rouge and Phoenix.
> (I was at those sessions but didn't participate in the journal
> discussion.) I believe - but I can't find the info now - the group
> volunteering to start things up included Thomas Noll, Moreno
> Andreatti,
> Ian Quinn, perhaps Robert Peck too.
>

If Thomas Noll and Moreno Andreatta are part of it, then probably
Guerino Mazzola is, too. I know a group around Guerino Mazzola is
starting a journal about math and music - I assume it is that one!
--
Hans Straub

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <hstraub64@t...> wrote:

> If Thomas Noll and Moreno Andreatta are part of it, then probably
> Guerino Mazzola is, too. I know a group around Guerino Mazzola is
> starting a journal about math and music - I assume it is that one!

I suppose that makes sense; I hope it won't become too much imbued
with the Mazzola point of view if so. But what the hell, even I
managed to drag algebraic geometry in at one point (via Grassmann
varieties.)

Hi Tom,

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "leathrum" <leathrum@j...> wrote:

> My second idea, and one that I probably wouldn't be much
> help with, is that this subject seems ripe for a "handbook"
> treatment -- that is, a published collection of advanced
> expository articles or essays, with sort of a tacit eye to
> stabilizing some of the terminology and notation. The
> Tonalsoft "encyclopedia" is good as far as it goes, but
> I am finding it to be somewhat spotty; the related Wikipedia
> articles just aren't very deep. I'm sure my experience,
> having some difficulty finding references to bring me up
> to speed, is not unique.

In general, i find that the Wikipedia articles pretty much
copy what i have written in the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia.

The Tonalsoft Encyclopedia was actually a bit better in
some ways before the conversion of the webpages to our
new website format, because all the terms that are in
the Encyclopedia were links wherever they appeared in
the various entries.

We've removed all those links for the time being, and
they will eventually be put back in, but we will be
maintaining the Encyclopedia with software instead of
manually, which is why the links have momentarily
disappeared.

Please note that the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia is a
collaborative effort -- it started out in 1998 as the
"Tuning Dictionary", with me creating webpages of Partch's
definitions directly from his book _Genesis of a Music_.

Then my friend and tuning guru John Chalmers donated the
entire glossary from his book _Divisions of the Tetrachord_
for me to use as Dictionary entries. I've continued to
quote tuning list and tuning-math list posts as i deemed
relevant, so there are contributions from all of the
heavy hitters on these lists.

You are most welcome to contribute anything you'd like
... and please note that now the entire Encyclopedia is
copyrighted by Tonalsoft, so if you do contribute, you
implicitly give Tonalsoft a license to use what you wrote.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

Hi again Tom,

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "leathrum" <leathrum@j...> wrote:
>
> > My second idea, and one that I probably wouldn't be much
> > help with, is that this subject seems ripe for a "handbook"
> > treatment -- that is, a published collection of advanced
> > expository articles or essays, with sort of a tacit eye to
> > stabilizing some of the terminology and notation. The
> > Tonalsoft "encyclopedia" is good as far as it goes, but
> > I am finding it to be somewhat spotty; the related Wikipedia
> > articles just aren't very deep. I'm sure my experience,
> > having some difficulty finding references to bring me up
> > to speed, is not unique.

I really should have mentioned this: the entire reason
i created the Encyclpedia (which was then the "Dictionary
of Tuning Terms") in the first place, was so that people
interested in this subject would be able to find out what
all the strange terminology means.

It required years of digging thru dusty university library
shelves for me to get a grip on the terminology, and i
wanted to make it easier for others.

This is all in response to what you wrote about definining
the terminology. That indeed is one of the primary concerns
of the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

Hi monz,

Have you considered dumping the encyclopedia into a wiki? Then
Paul wouldn't have to pester you for updates. And we wouldn't
have to compete with Wikipedia denizens to keep our stuff straight.

The new format definitely needs some work. Or rather less.
It's over-engineered.

I'm not sure what you mean about building it into Tonescape,
but this sounds like a bad idea to me.

-Carl

At 02:08 AM 10/15/2005, you wrote:
>Hi Tom,
>
>
>--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "leathrum" <leathrum@j...> wrote:
>
>> My second idea, and one that I probably wouldn't be much
>> help with, is that this subject seems ripe for a "handbook"
>> treatment -- that is, a published collection of advanced
>> expository articles or essays, with sort of a tacit eye to
>> stabilizing some of the terminology and notation. The
>> Tonalsoft "encyclopedia" is good as far as it goes, but
>> I am finding it to be somewhat spotty; the related Wikipedia
>> articles just aren't very deep. I'm sure my experience,
>> having some difficulty finding references to bring me up
>> to speed, is not unique.
>
>
>
>In general, i find that the Wikipedia articles pretty much
>copy what i have written in the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia.
>
>The Tonalsoft Encyclopedia was actually a bit better in
>some ways before the conversion of the webpages to our
>new website format, because all the terms that are in
>the Encyclopedia were links wherever they appeared in
>the various entries.
>
>We've removed all those links for the time being, and
>they will eventually be put back in, but we will be
>maintaining the Encyclopedia with software instead of
>manually, which is why the links have momentarily
>disappeared.
>
>Please note that the Tonalsoft Encyclopedia is a
>collaborative effort -- it started out in 1998 as the
>"Tuning Dictionary", with me creating webpages of Partch's
>definitions directly from his book _Genesis of a Music_.
>
>Then my friend and tuning guru John Chalmers donated the
>entire glossary from his book _Divisions of the Tetrachord_
>for me to use as Dictionary entries. I've continued to
>quote tuning list and tuning-math list posts as i deemed
>relevant, so there are contributions from all of the
>heavy hitters on these lists.
>
>You are most welcome to contribute anything you'd like
>... and please note that now the entire Encyclopedia is
>copyrighted by Tonalsoft, so if you do contribute, you
>implicitly give Tonalsoft a license to use what you wrote.
>
>-monz
>http://tonalsoft.com
>Tonescape microtonal music software

Hi Carl,

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
>
> Hi monz,
>
> Have you considered dumping the encyclopedia into a wiki?
> Then Paul wouldn't have to pester you for updates. And
> we wouldn't have to compete with Wikipedia denizens to
> keep our stuff straight.

It's an attractive idea. I have no clue how to do it.

> The new format definitely needs some work. Or rather less.
> It's over-engineered.

Yes, seems that way, huh? It's all for the purpose of
being able to manage it with software instead of having
to do it manually. My online work has already grown far
too big for me to maintain it by hand myself. We had to
find a way to automate it.

> I'm not sure what you mean about building it into
> Tonescape, but this sounds like a bad idea to me.

I'm not really sure what *you* mean by that, because
i didn't write anything about that in the post you quoted.

But if you're referring to something i wrote before,
yes, i do plan to eventually integrate the Encyclopedia
into Tonescape. Why is that a bad idea?

For example, if you're interested in, say, blackjack,
instead of just reading a webpage, looking at graphics,
and clicking links that play mp3's, you'd instead be
able to use Tonescape to load and play pieces composed
in blackjack, compose something in it yourself, and
have all the documetary stuff to read as well.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

>> Hi monz,
>>
>> Have you considered dumping the encyclopedia into a wiki?
>> Then Paul wouldn't have to pester you for updates. And
>> we wouldn't have to compete with Wikipedia denizens to
>> keep our stuff straight.
>
>It's an attractive idea. I have no clue how to do it.

You rent a server (you're doing that already), download the
free wiki package of your choice (many hosting providers
have them already installed for you) and copy your enc.
files into the database (Chris hopefully can do that, since
it looks like he's got it in a database already).

>> The new format definitely needs some work. Or rather less.
>> It's over-engineered.
>
>Yes, seems that way, huh? It's all for the purpose of
>being able to manage it with software instead of having
>to do it manually. My online work has already grown far
>too big for me to maintain it by hand myself. We had to
>find a way to automate it.

That's why it's *ideal* for a Wiki. The links connect
automatically -- no need to reinvent the wheel there.

>> I'm not sure what you mean about building it into
>> Tonescape, but this sounds like a bad idea to me.
>
>I'm not really sure what *you* mean by that, because
>i didn't write anything about that in the post you quoted.
>
>But if you're referring to something i wrote before,
>yes, i do plan to eventually integrate the Encyclopedia
>into Tonescape. Why is that a bad idea?
>
>For example, if you're interested in, say, blackjack,
>instead of just reading a webpage, looking at graphics,
>and clicking links that play mp3's, you'd instead be
>able to use Tonescape to load and play pieces composed
>in blackjack, compose something in it yourself, and
>have all the documetary stuff to read as well.

Oops. Looks like I grossly misread, "but we will be
maintaining the Encyclopedia with software instead of
manually". Sorry!

I have nothing against adding educational content
to the software. I think that's a great idea! But
that's a different thing than an online encyclopedia.
The software could have links to a Wiki, built-in
demos of tunings, or both. But they're not the same

-Carl