Re: tuning dictionaries vs math dictionaries

To the Monz, from an infrequent poster but frequent reader:

For standard mathematical terms, it's my humble opinion that a gloss in
your dictionary will not be worth the effort you'd be putting into it.
For the mathematically advanced, who are the only ones to use precise
definitions for their theorem-building, definitions of standard
mathematical terms will be unnecessary. For the rest of us, a large amount
of study (i.e. more than can be managed from a dictionary entry, however
well-written) is likely to be needed before we get comfortable enough to
use the definitions.

When I come across mathematical terms I don't know, or that I need to be
refreshed on, Eric Weisstein's site at http://mathworld.wolfram.com is
generally excellent. You could provide links to terms there and avoid
diluting your own excellent dictionary, which I agree with others should
remain first and foremost for musicians.

I don't think there'd be a problem linking directly to individual entries,
e.g.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlgebraicNumber.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Determinant.html

Otherwise you could link to the site entry and people can search for
themselves. There's an alphabetical index that's easy to use. I always
lose at least 20 minutes once I get there, from following new links...

With no disrespect to Gene and his work, I think that turning your
dictionary into a collection of definitions to be used as reference and
starting point for other mathematicians to build tuning theorems is too
far removed from its purpose as originally conceived, which is to
introduce *musicians* to alternative tunings. I reckon most musicians, if
they came to your dictionary curious about alternative tunings and the
first definition they saw was Gene's definition of scale, would say
"oops, this isn't what I'd hoped for, I thought I knew at least what a
scale was but I can't understand this, I'd better look somewhere else".

Anyway, I thought I'd say how it seemed to me. But you're the Monz and
it's up to you.

--- In tuning-math@y..., jon wild <wild@f...> wrote:

> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlgebraicNumber.html
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Determinant.html

This looks like a good plan, when it works, but it doesn't always work. The definition for algebraic number said everything Paul or I said, and more. The definition of determinant was the usual one--I would have defined it in terms of wedge products after defining the wedge product--but should certainly do. The defintion of wedge product, unfortunately, does not exist, or at least I couldn't find it. Here is a definition of Clifford algbera:

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CliffordAlgebra.html

I think this does not work for our purposes.

I checked out the entry for abelian group

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AbelianGroup.html

and I think this would be far more confusing than a definition written with musical applications in mind--it assumes a large amount of irrelevant group theory knowledge.

I'll make use of mathworld links where appropriate,
but I'd still like the tuning-specific dope from Gene.

My whole intention is to understand, and help others
to understand, the work that's gone on at tuning-math
for the last several months. Gene, Paul, Graham, and
Dave are the only members posting who seem to follow it.

After more thought, I'm more hesitant to split the
Dictionary up. But if there is a way to make a
simplified tuning-specific definition as well as a
more comprehensive and more general one, I'll upload
them both and link them together. That way people
innocently surfing into the Dictionary won't get
overwhelmed, and those who want more can still get it.

-monz

----- Original Message -----
From: genewardsmith <genewardsmith@juno.com>
To: <tuning-math@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2002 1:20 PM
Subject: [tuning-math] Re: tuning dictionaries vs math dictionaries

> --- In tuning-math@y..., jon wild <wild@f...> wrote:
>
> > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlgebraicNumber.html
> > http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Determinant.html
>
> This looks like a good plan, when it works, but it doesn't always work.
The definition for algebraic number said everything Paul or I said, and
more. The definition of determinant was the usual one--I would have defined
it in terms of wedge products after defining the wedge product--but should
certainly do. The defintion of wedge product, unfortunately, does not exist,
or at least I couldn't find it. Here is a definition of Clifford algbera:
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CliffordAlgebra.html
>
> I think this does not work for our purposes.
>
> I checked out the entry for abelian group
>
> http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AbelianGroup.html
>
> and I think this would be far more confusing than a definition written
with musical applications in mind--it assumes a large amount of irrelevant
group theory knowledge.
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> tuning-math-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

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

--- In tuning-math@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
> My whole intention is to understand, and help others
> to understand, the work that's gone on at tuning-math
> for the last several months. Gene, Paul, Graham, and
> Dave are the only members posting who seem to follow it.

I'm not following it any more. They lost me somewhere back before
"torsion".