Researchers discover that the Scala archives are full of "convex" scales

Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110325102008.htm

Here's the paper: http://staff.science.uva.nl/~rens/convex_scales.pdf

Maybe I'm confused, but it looks like this "convexity" property is
basically just MOS. Or, if it's not a MOS, it's a MODMOS that doesn't
have any "holes" in it. I'd like to say that the MODMOS's are
star-convex and the MOS's are convex, but that doesn't seem to line up
all the time. They do seem to understand the basics of Fokker
periodicity blocks and the like.

What I thought was funny was this quote:

"It should be emphasized that we do not wish to present a new
definition of the concept
‘scale’. Yet we do investigate a condition that can possibly be used
to refine a definition
of a scale. Therefore, we look into a large corpus, the Scala Archive
(Scala Archive 2010),
which is a database of scales collected from books, articles, websites
and other media."

So they've discovered that an archive which is chock full of
intentionally-MOS scales straight out of the tuning list is full of
"convex" scales. Not sure what to make of it.

-Mike

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110325102008.htm
>
> Here's the paper: http://staff.science.uva.nl/~rens/convex_scales.pdf

Some of the scales were deliberately created by me so as to be convex. Many others are the result of constructions which involve convexity, such as Fokker blocks.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@> wrote:
> >
> > Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110325102008.htm
> >
> > Here's the paper: http://staff.science.uva.nl/~rens/convex_scales.pdf
>
> Some of the scales were deliberately created by me so as to be convex. Many others are the result of constructions which involve convexity, such as Fokker blocks.

I just skimmed the paper, and they looked only at JI scales, though the same concept applies to any scale in a regular temperament. The convex closures I constructed, such as plugging the "hole" in the middle of the Eikosany, would therefore have been mostly missed. Anyway, the aren't important; convexity is automatic for certain scale constructions, and is likely to arise anyway, which is one of the main points of the paper.

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

> I just skimmed the paper, and they looked only at JI scales, though the same concept applies to any scale in a regular temperament. The convex closures I constructed, such as plugging the "hole" in the middle of the Eikosany, would therefore have been mostly missed. Anyway, the

If you look in the tuning-math archives, the first thing you find is Paul Erlich detempering Blackjack and Canasta with an eye to keeping the result convex, so I'm hardly the only one deliberaty constructing scales to be convex. And Erlich was one of the people cited!

I think it's pitiful someone would write a paper like this and never even visiting tuning-math.

perhaps they didn't know it existed?

Considering you are an author of many of the "scales" investigated I think
you have a legitimate route to writing a letter to the editor of the said
publication to make any corrections / suggestions. This happens in other
science magazines so I don't see why not here. OR you could try to write a
full peer-reviewed rebuttal.

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:44 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
>
> > I just skimmed the paper, and they looked only at JI scales, though the
> same concept applies to any scale in a regular temperament. The convex
> closures I constructed, such as plugging the "hole" in the middle of the
> Eikosany, would therefore have been mostly missed. Anyway, the
>
> If you look in the tuning-math archives, the first thing you find is Paul
> Erlich detempering Blackjack and Canasta with an eye to keeping the result
> convex, so I'm hardly the only one deliberaty constructing scales to be
> convex. And Erlich was one of the people cited!
>
> I think it's pitiful someone would write a paper like this and never even
> visiting tuning-math.
>
>
>

Oh, so non-octave tunings / "scales" don't exist?

"Until now it was assumed that the only thing scales throughout the
world have in common is the octave."

Surprisingly narrow.

Chris

On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 10:48 AM, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com> wrote:
> Article: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/03/110325102008.htm
>
> Here's the paper: http://staff.science.uva.nl/~rens/convex_scales.pdf
>
> Maybe I'm confused, but it looks like this "convexity" property is
> basically just MOS. Or, if it's not a MOS, it's a MODMOS that doesn't
> have any "holes" in it. I'd like to say that the MODMOS's are
> star-convex and the MOS's are convex, but that doesn't seem to line up
> all the time. They do seem to understand the basics of Fokker
> periodicity blocks and the like.
>
> What I thought was funny was this quote:
>
> "It should be emphasized that we do not wish to present a new
> definition of the concept
> ‘scale’. Yet we do investigate a condition that can possibly be used
> to refine a definition
> of a scale. Therefore, we look into a large corpus, the Scala Archive
> (Scala Archive 2010),
> which is a database of scales collected from books, articles, websites
> and other media."
>
> So they've discovered that an archive which is chock full of
> intentionally-MOS scales straight out of the tuning list is full of
> "convex" scales. Not sure what to make of it.
>
> -Mike
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>