The significance of TOP-RMS

I think it gives weight to the idea that this tuning is significant
that it has been come across at least three different times, in
different ways. So far as I know, the sequence of events is as follows:

(1) Discovered by me, and called Frobenius tuning

(2) Discovered by Graham, and called TOP-RMS tuning

(3) Discovered hy me again, and called pseudoinverse tuning

It's been come at three times, and in three ways. Admittedly by me
twice, but I still think that adds to the claim of significance. Also,
I don't know if (2) comes before or after (1), in case someone wants to
worry about priority.

On 06/03/07, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com> wrote:
> I think it gives weight to the idea that this tuning is significant
> that it has been come across at least three different times, in
> different ways. So far as I know, the sequence of events is as follows:
>
> (1) Discovered by me, and called Frobenius tuning
>
> (2) Discovered by Graham, and called TOP-RMS tuning
>
> (3) Discovered hy me again, and called pseudoinverse tuning
>
> It's been come at three times, and in three ways. Admittedly by me
> twice, but I still think that adds to the claim of significance. Also,
> I don't know if (2) comes before or after (1), in case someone wants to
> worry about priority.

It's a simple and obvious idea, once you start looking at errors of
primes. Being simple it's also likely to have all kinds of
interesting properties. So far I'm finding it much more tractable
than TOP-max.

Graham