dict/genemath.htm

Here's my opening salvo in the war against tuning-math
ignorance and illiteracy:

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/genemath.htm

I left the post headers in to make it easy to track
revisions, such as the one for "scale". Let me know
what parts should be excised, expanded, etc.

There's no link to it from anywhere yet. I'll wait
for word from Gene or the consensus here as to when
to announce it publicly on the big list. If right now
is the right time, say so; if not, I have lots of patience.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning-math@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

> I left the post headers in to make it easy to track
> revisions, such as the one for "scale". Let me know
> what parts should be excised, expanded, etc.

One general rule is that when an entry has been corrected, you should always use the corrected version; so for instance, my revised definition of "scale" is the one I would want. Also, the definitions of algebraic number etc. really have nothing to do with what I'm up to; I put them out because I thought you wanted them for your regular tuning dictionary. Finally, do you really want it to be just a Gene Smith dictionary? I just spent some time trying to discover what Lumma Stability was, and failing. That's the sort of thing I like to find in your dictionary, and I don't really care if it is or isn't in general use, so long as it is in use in these precincts--and it is!
I would suggest, if you want to divide things into a general usage dictionary and one of specialist terms, including ones local to this community (so far, at least) that could be done.

> From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> To: <tuning-math@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 1:47 AM
> Subject: [tuning-math] Re: dict/genemath.htm
>
>
> One general rule is that when an entry has been corrected,
> you should always use the corrected version; so for instance,
> my revised definition of "scale" is the one I would want.

OK, thanks ... I wasn't sure if the second definition of "scale"
was supposed to be a correction or a variant. I've removed the
original definition and the parenthetical comment, and left only
the corrected version.
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/genemath.htm

> Also, the definitions of algebraic number etc. really have
> nothing to do with what I'm up to; I put them out because
> I thought you wanted them for your regular tuning dictionary.

Sure, I want *anything* that has anything to do with tuning.

There's already a definition of "algebraic number" in there,
by Paul:
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/algebra.htm

> Finally, do you really want it to be just a Gene Smith
> dictionary?

No, of course not. I just thought of that as a quick-and-dirty
way to slap a name on it. Anything and everything in that webpage
is open to all criticism and subject to change, right down to the
title.

> I just spent some time trying to discover what Lumma Stability
> was, and failing. That's the sort of thing I like to find in
> your dictionary, and I don't really care if it is or isn't in
> general use, so long as it is in use in these precincts--and it is!

"Lumma Stability" is *exactly* the kind of thing this Dictionary
needs in it, because this is the first place many people will go
to find out what it is! Carl, how about it?

> I would suggest, if you want to divide things into a general
> usage dictionary and one of specialist terms, including ones
> local to this community (so far, at least) that could be done.

Well, that's the idea that I had for the time being ... to just
put all these highly technical definitions on a single page.
The primary reason *I* wanted them segregated from the rest of
the Dictionary is because *I* don't understand them yet!!

Once I grok them, the plan is to flesh out each definition
with lots of graphics, tables, etc., to make them easier for
the novice to understand -- then, they'll be split up into
separate definitions. For now, I think it's better to leave
all the related terminology together on one page, and to keep
adding amendments, criticisms, etc., as needed until a consensus
is reached that something is ready for public airing and
announcement on the big list.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Joe,

--- In tuning-math@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> Here's my opening salvo in the war against tuning-math
> ignorance and illiteracy:

In light of your posted personality type (elsewhere), and my personal
knowledge of you in 'realtime', I would humbly suggest that the
language you use above is needlessly inflammatory and
uncharacteristic for you. I am neither ignorant nor illiterate, I
simply have priorities that - given a finite amount of time - fill my
hours with *musical* matters, not tuning or math matters. I am
encouraged by the developments in these other areas, but you show
disrespect for those who simply are pursuing areas that are more
important to them.

Surely, if you choose to include the mathematic-music definitions,
you can do so in a manner that does not denigrate people not involved
in those areas.

Thanks,
Jon

Gene wrote:
>I just spent some time trying to discover what Lumma Stability
>was, and failing.

If you open the Scala file tips.par in a text editor and search
for "stability" you will find a definition.

Manuel

> Gene wrote:
>>I just spent some time trying to discover what Lumma Stability
>>was, and failing.
>
> If you open the Scala file tips.par in a text editor and search
> for "stability" you will find a definition.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

The def. of Rothenberg stability, though... isn't this the portion
of intervals breaking strict propriety, rather than just the
intervals appearing in more than one class?

-Carl