Lumma scale properties

Manuel tells me he wants to keep his version of the definitions, so
would it be OK for me to start claiming those are the official
definitions of Lumma stability and propriety?

> Manuel tells me he wants to keep his version of the definitions,
> so would it be OK for me to start claiming those are the official
> definitions of Lumma stability and propriety?

If he would accommodate the suggestion here:

/tuning-math/message/15140

(which no one ever replied to), then yes.

Actually, I should mention that my incoming e-mail has been down
for about a week (should be up later tonight), so if you sent me
mail offlist during that time, I'll get it soon.

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <ekin@...> wrote:
>
> > Manuel tells me he wants to keep his version of the definitions,
> > so would it be OK for me to start claiming those are the official
> > definitions of Lumma stability and propriety?
>
> If he would accommodate the suggestion here:
>
> /tuning-math/message/15140
>
> (which no one ever replied to), then yes.

I never read this before; I can get confused with the new system
concerning what I've read and not read.

Manuel? Are you reading this?

>> > Manuel tells me he wants to keep his version of the definitions,
>> > so would it be OK for me to start claiming those are the official
>> > definitions of Lumma stability and propriety?
>>
>> If he would accommodate the suggestion here:
>>
>> /tuning-math/message/15140
>>
>> (which no one ever replied to), then yes.
>
>I never read this before; I can get confused with the new system
>concerning what I've read and not read.

Me too!

-Carl