Re: Our Paper

In-Reply-To: <a2qdsr+8o3t@eGroups.com>
paulerlich wrote:

> Graham, do you agree with the way Gene's doing things?
>
> If so, you guys have a plurality, against Dave and myself, who both
> seem to be resisting in different areas.

What differences are you seeing? I thought we were in broad agreement.

On suggestion I would like to make, though. If the intention of this
paper is to concentrate on unison vectors, I'd like it to avoid mentioning
the method of constructing linear temperaments from equal temperaments.
So long as acknowledgements are in place, you can leave me off that one.
Then I can write the ET method up, along with whoever's interested, for a
future issue of Xenharmonikon. This would concentrate more on the
practicality than the maths (most of which you'll already have covered)
and so has to be left until I have more practical experience of the
scales.

> The latest list of 5-limit temperaments is fine by me, though if
> Graham and Dave are into the idea of a stronger penalty for
> complexity, sacrificing flatness, I'll side with them against Gene.

That's all froth as far as I'm concerned.

> Then we'll need similar lists for {2,3,5,7}, {2,3,7}, {2,5,7}, and
> {3,5,7} -- always keeping the first prime as the interval of
> equivalence, for brevity's sake. Additional useful info would include
> a list of proper and improper MOSs (actually, a horagram might be
> best) and lattices wherever feasible.

I can calculate these, with whatever metrics you like, if you can't work
out the Python code. I'm thinking of adding CGIs to do this kind of
thing, but it would mean restructuring the code.

I still have to do the automatic search on unison vectors as well. Is
that a priority?

> And all this is only part IV of our paper . . .

It is getting bloated. I suggest you decide what really needs to be
published now, and get cracking. Or perhaps an introduction to some of
the new temperaments for the imminent Xenharmonikon, and leave the
mathematical details for a formal journal (but get your foot in the door
as soon as possible).

Graham

--- In tuning-math@y..., graham@m... wrote:

> Or perhaps an introduction to some of
> the new temperaments for the imminent Xenharmonikon,

It's not as imminent as some have made it out to be. Despite reports
to the contrary, no papers have yet been accepted for the next issue
of XH.

Maybe we should all write separate papers that fit together and
reference one another.