The Mathematically Challenged.

Would it be possible for all you math adepts to occasionally translate
your ideas into cents which are more easily understood and implemented
in real life musical situations? I would like to try out some of the
ideas expressed in the recent postings but I find it difficult
interpreting all the digits, figures, acronyms and jargon. I realise
that this site is for tuning maths but could there be a bit more tuning
to complement the maths so that mathematically challenged musicians
like myself can take an interest in what you do and thereby learn from
it. Please don't respond angrily. I love the idea of mathematics. I'm
just not very good at it.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
>
> Would it be possible for all you math adepts to occasionally
> translate your ideas into cents which are more easily understood and
> implemented in real life musical situations? I would like to try out
> some of the ideas expressed in the recent postings but I find it
> difficult interpreting all the digits, figures, acronyms and jargon.
> I realise that this site is for tuning maths but could there be a bit
> more tuning to complement the maths so that mathematically challenged
> musicians like myself can take an interest in what you do and thereby
> learn from it. Please don't respond angrily. I love the idea of
> mathematics. I'm just not very good at it.
>

Well, we can try, in any case. Is there some specific posting you would
like to have more explanation about?
--
Hans Straub

At 04:59 AM 5/7/2008, you wrote:
>Would it be possible for all you math adepts to occasionally translate
>your ideas into cents which are more easily understood and implemented
>in real life musical situations? I would like to try out some of the
>ideas expressed in the recent postings but I find it difficult
>interpreting all the digits, figures, acronyms and jargon. I realise
>that this site is for tuning maths but could there be a bit more tuning
>to complement the maths so that mathematically challenged musicians
>like myself can take an interest in what you do and thereby learn from
>it. Please don't respond angrily. I love the idea of mathematics. I'm
>just not very good at it.

I would suggest the main tuning list

/tuning

as the best place for this sort of thing. I'd be happy to try
to answer questions there.

This list was created for the reason that people were saying
things like you do above on the main list. So I'm afraid they
won't get much sympathy here.

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <straub@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> >
> > Would it be possible for all you math adepts to occasionally
> > translate your ideas into cents which are more easily understood
and
> > implemented in real life musical situations? I would like to try
out
> > some of the ideas expressed in the recent postings but I find it
> > difficult interpreting all the digits, figures, acronyms and
jargon.
> > I realise that this site is for tuning maths but could there be a
bit
> > more tuning to complement the maths so that mathematically
challenged
> > musicians like myself can take an interest in what you do and
thereby
> > learn from it. Please don't respond angrily. I love the idea of
> > mathematics. I'm just not very good at it.
> >
>
> Well, we can try, in any case. Is there some specific posting you
would
> like to have more explanation about?
> --
> Hans Straub
> Yes. I would like Paul G. Hjelmstad to try to explain his ideas and
translate them into cents so that musicians like myself can try to to
understand them. I understand cents. Alexander Ellis designed the
system of 1200 cents so that ordinary people could have an idea about
the scale of things. Musicology works with cents. This is musical
empiricism.
Robert.

robert thomas martin wrote:

>> Yes. I would like Paul G. Hjelmstad to try to explain his ideas and > translate them into cents so that musicians like myself can try to to > understand them. I understand cents. Alexander Ellis designed the > system of 1200 cents so that ordinary people could have an idea about > the scale of things. Musicology works with cents. This is musical > empiricism. Paul's ideas are about choosing chords or scales from 22-equal (or even sometimes 12-equal). You can't translate that into cents. The tuning is always the same -- 22-equal. It's not like he's describing tunings in some arcane language you don't understand.

Graham

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> robert thomas martin wrote:
>
> >> Yes. I would like Paul G. Hjelmstad to try to explain his ideas
and
> > translate them into cents so that musicians like myself can try
to to
> > understand them. I understand cents. Alexander Ellis designed the
> > system of 1200 cents so that ordinary people could have an idea
about
> > the scale of things. Musicology works with cents. This is musical
> >
empiricism.
>
> Paul's ideas are about choosing chords or scales from
> 22-equal (or even sometimes 12-equal). You can't translate
> that into cents. The tuning is always the same -- 22-equal.
> It's not like he's describing tunings in some arcane
> language you don't understand.
>
>
> Graham
> Sorry. It seems I've shown my
ignorance.
Robert

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <straub@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> > <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Would it be possible for all you math adepts to occasionally
> > > translate your ideas into cents which are more easily
understood
> and
> > > implemented in real life musical situations? I would like to
try
> out
> > > some of the ideas expressed in the recent postings but I find
it
> > > difficult interpreting all the digits, figures, acronyms and
> jargon.
> > > I realise that this site is for tuning maths but could there be
a
> bit
> > > more tuning to complement the maths so that mathematically
> challenged
> > > musicians like myself can take an interest in what you do and
> thereby
> > > learn from it. Please don't respond angrily. I love the idea of
> > > mathematics. I'm just not very good at it.
> > >
> >
> > Well, we can try, in any case. Is there some specific posting you
> would
> > like to have more explanation about?
> > --
> > Hans Straub
> > Yes. I would like Paul G. Hjelmstad to try to explain his ideas
and
> translate them into cents so that musicians like myself can try to
to
> understand them. I understand cents. Alexander Ellis designed the
> system of 1200 cents so that ordinary people could have an idea
about
> the scale of things. Musicology works with cents. This is musical
>
empiricism.
> Robert.

Oh here it is! Well I am kinda the black sheep of tuning-math,
cuz I am more into musical set theory than tuning theory per se.
For my 22-tET posts you can for now assume a 22-tET temperament,
so just take (1200/22)*x where x=(0..21) to make "cents" of it.
Sorry.

PGH

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
<phjelmstad@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <straub@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> > > <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Would it be possible for all you math adepts to occasionally
> > > > translate your ideas into cents which are more easily
> understood
> > and
> > > > implemented in real life musical situations? I would like to
> try
> > out
> > > > some of the ideas expressed in the recent postings but I find
> it
> > > > difficult interpreting all the digits, figures, acronyms and
> > jargon.
> > > > I realise that this site is for tuning maths but could there
be
> a
> > bit
> > > > more tuning to complement the maths so that mathematically
> > challenged
> > > > musicians like myself can take an interest in what you do and
> > thereby
> > > > learn from it. Please don't respond angrily. I love the idea
of
> > > > mathematics. I'm just not very good at it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, we can try, in any case. Is there some specific posting
you
> > would
> > > like to have more explanation about?
> > > --
> > > Hans Straub
> > > Yes. I would like Paul G. Hjelmstad to try to explain his ideas
> and
> > translate them into cents so that musicians like myself can try
to
> to
> > understand them. I understand cents. Alexander Ellis designed the
> > system of 1200 cents so that ordinary people could have an idea
> about
> > the scale of things. Musicology works with cents. This is musical
> >
>
empiricism.
> > Robert.
>
> Oh here it is! Well I am kinda the black sheep of tuning-math,
> cuz I am more into musical set theory than tuning theory per se.
> For my 22-tET posts you can for now assume a 22-tET temperament,
> so just take (1200/22)*x where x=(0..21) to make "cents" of it.
> Sorry.
>
> PGH
> I shouldn't have put you on the spot. It is I who should be sorry.
So does (1200/22)*x where x=(0..21) mean that when you use figures
from 0 1,2,3,.......to ...19, 20, 21 then I can take the figures and
convert them to cents?

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
<robertthomasmartin@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
> <phjelmstad@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> > <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <straub@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> > > > <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Would it be possible for all you math adepts to
occasionally
> > > > > translate your ideas into cents which are more easily
> > understood
> > > and
> > > > > implemented in real life musical situations? I would like
to
> > try
> > > out
> > > > > some of the ideas expressed in the recent postings but I
find
> > it
> > > > > difficult interpreting all the digits, figures, acronyms
and
> > > jargon.
> > > > > I realise that this site is for tuning maths but could
there
> be
> > a
> > > bit
> > > > > more tuning to complement the maths so that mathematically
> > > challenged
> > > > > musicians like myself can take an interest in what you do
and
> > > thereby
> > > > > learn from it. Please don't respond angrily. I love the
idea
> of
> > > > > mathematics. I'm just not very good at it.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, we can try, in any case. Is there some specific posting
> you
> > > would
> > > > like to have more explanation about?
> > > > --
> > > > Hans Straub
> > > > Yes. I would like Paul G. Hjelmstad to try to explain his
ideas
> > and
> > > translate them into cents so that musicians like myself can try
> to
> > to
> > > understand them. I understand cents. Alexander Ellis designed
the
> > > system of 1200 cents so that ordinary people could have an idea
> > about
> > > the scale of things. Musicology works with cents. This is
musical
> > >
> >
>
empiricism.
> > > Robert.
> >
> > Oh here it is! Well I am kinda the black sheep of tuning-math,
> > cuz I am more into musical set theory than tuning theory per se.
> > For my 22-tET posts you can for now assume a 22-tET temperament,
> > so just take (1200/22)*x where x=(0..21) to make "cents" of it.
> > Sorry.
> >
> > PGH
> > I shouldn't have put you on the spot. It is I who should be
sorry.
> So does (1200/22)*x where x=(0..21) mean that when you use figures
> from 0 1,2,3,.......to ...19, 20, 21 then I can take the figures
and
> convert them to cents?
>
Yes

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
<phjelmstad@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul G Hjelmstad"
> > <phjelmstad@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> > > <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <straub@>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "robert thomas martin"
> > > > > <robertthomasmartin@> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would it be possible for all you math adepts to
> occasionally
> > > > > > translate your ideas into cents which are more easily
> > > understood
> > > > and
> > > > > > implemented in real life musical situations? I would like
> to
> > > try
> > > > out
> > > > > > some of the ideas expressed in the recent postings but I
> find
> > > it
> > > > > > difficult interpreting all the digits, figures, acronyms
> and
> > > > jargon.
> > > > > > I realise that this site is for tuning maths but could
> there
> > be
> > > a
> > > > bit
> > > > > > more tuning to complement the maths so that
mathematically
> > > > challenged
> > > > > > musicians like myself can take an interest in what you do
> and
> > > > thereby
> > > > > > learn from it. Please don't respond angrily. I love the
> idea
> > of
> > > > > > mathematics. I'm just not very good at it.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, we can try, in any case. Is there some specific
posting
> > you
> > > > would
> > > > > like to have more explanation about?
> > > > > --
> > > > > Hans Straub
> > > > > Yes. I would like Paul G. Hjelmstad to try to explain his
> ideas
> > > and
> > > > translate them into cents so that musicians like myself can
try
> > to
> > > to
> > > > understand them. I understand cents. Alexander Ellis designed
> the
> > > > system of 1200 cents so that ordinary people could have an
idea
> > > about
> > > > the scale of things. Musicology works with cents. This is
> musical
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
empiricism.
> > > > Robert.
> > >
> > > Oh here it is! Well I am kinda the black sheep of tuning-math,
> > > cuz I am more into musical set theory than tuning theory per se.
> > > For my 22-tET posts you can for now assume a 22-tET temperament,
> > > so just take (1200/22)*x where x=(0..21) to make "cents" of it.
> > > Sorry.
> > >
> > > PGH
> > > I shouldn't have put you on the spot. It is I who should be
> sorry.
> > So does (1200/22)*x where x=(0..21) mean that when you use
figures
> > from 0 1,2,3,.......to ...19, 20, 21 then I can take the figures
> and
> > convert them to cents?
> >
> Yes
>
From Robert. Since you like musical set theory you should be able
to use the values of 53tet (0 to 52) and select 22 note sets (or
whatever) from the 53 numbers. The cent values of 53tet are very
close to the traditional ratios of middle eastern, indian, asian and
european theory. Does this make "cents" to you?