what's up with the paper?

hey, does anyone have the message # of gene's latest {2,3,7}
results? shall we move on to a full consideration of {2,3,5,7},
preferably with dave keenan and graham breed looking over
gene's shoulder? or am i just being a pain in the :-B ?

--- In tuning-math@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> hey, does anyone have the message # of gene's latest {2,3,7}
> results?

found them --
/tuning-math/message/3787

--- In tuning-math@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Shall we move on to a full consideration of {2,3,5,7},
> preferably with dave keenan and graham breed looking over
> gene's shoulder? or am i just being a pain in the :-B ?

I'd prefer to do {2,3,5,7} next. I don't have a good feel for {2,3,7}
(or {2,5,7} or {3,5,7}). In fact I'd prefer to do the full 9-limit and
11-limit after that, and hopefully by then we'll have figured out how
to interpolate the cutoffs for the less familiar subsets.

So Gene, how about hitting us with a wide-open list of 7-limit linear
temperaments, so we can consider where the cutoffs might need to go.

--- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...>
wrote:
> > Shall we move on to a full consideration of {2,3,5,7},
> > preferably with dave keenan and graham breed looking over
> > gene's shoulder? or am i just being a pain in the :-B ?
>
> I'd prefer to do {2,3,5,7} next. I don't have a good feel for {2,3,7}

we have wonder/slendric, which is clearly the best. our paper
need not go into too many more, though many "wonders" lie
within the data gene provided (e.g., slendric seems to have an
equally complex "twin", reminding one of the syntonic-pelogic
pairing).

> (or {2,5,7} or {3,5,7}). In fact I'd prefer to do the full 9-limit and
> 11-limit after that,

at this rate, maybe we better sacrifice those to help the paper get
done sooner?

> and hopefully by then we'll have figured out how
> to interpolate the cutoffs for the less familiar subsets.

sounds like great fodder for a second paper.

> So Gene, how about hitting us with a wide-open list of 7-limit
linear
> temperaments, so we can consider where the cutoffs might
need to go.

not a bad idea. also, i'd like to propose that we report the
complexity of the simplest temperament that we left off the end of
each list (in addition to my proposal that we order by complexity).

--- In tuning-math@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> Also, i'd like to propose that we report the
> complexity of the simplest temperament that we left off the end of
> each list (in addition to my proposal that we order by complexity).

You mean the simplest one that comes inside the badness cutoff, but
outside the complexity cutoff?
This doesn't need to be _in_addition_ to the complexity cutoff. It can
_be_ the complexity cutoff (as in "less than and not equal to").

--- In tuning-math@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:

Lately I've been writing music instead of the paper.

--- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > Also, i'd like to propose that we report the
> > complexity of the simplest temperament that we left off the end
of
> > each list (in addition to my proposal that we order by
complexity).
>
> You mean the simplest one that comes inside the badness cutoff, but
> outside the complexity cutoff?
> This doesn't need to be _in_addition_ to the complexity cutoff. It
can
> _be_ the complexity cutoff (as in "less than and not equal to").

right, as long as it's made clear that there exists another
temperament satisfying the other constraint, at that 'cutoff'
complexity level.

In-Reply-To: <aaik8g+fl2d@eGroups.com>
Is anybody actually planning to write this paper? There was a lot of talk
at the start of the year about it, but nobody did anything. As there
hasn't been much advance in the methods of calculating the ETs since, it
probably is time to write that up. Main things to report are:

Method for calculating a linear temperament from two equal temperaments.

Method for calculating a linear temperament from a set of unison vectors.

Worked examples, including the most important discoveries.

The badness measures still seem to be controversial, so we'll have to
leave the detailed discussion of them to a later paper.

emotionaljourney22 wrote:

> --- In tuning-math@y..., "dkeenanuqnetau" <d.keenan@u...>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning-math@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...>
> wrote:
> > > Shall we move on to a full consideration of {2,3,5,7},
> > > preferably with dave keenan and graham breed looking over
> > > gene's shoulder? or am i just being a pain in the :-B ?
> >
> > I'd prefer to do {2,3,5,7} next. I don't have a good feel for {2,3,7}
>
> we have wonder/slendric, which is clearly the best. our paper
> need not go into too many more, though many "wonders" lie
> within the data gene provided (e.g., slendric seems to have an
> equally complex "twin", reminding one of the syntonic-pelogic
> pairing).

We don't need to go into any more in the first paper. We do need to cover
all limits up to 13. Magic and multiple-29 don't seem to exist in the
literature, and it's time they did. Miracle is only mentioned in that one
paper that nobody seemed to notice. We also need to give an example that
isn't a complete limit, and {2,3,7} will do for that. And an example that
isn't octave-based, like the Bohlen-Pierce generalisation. And an example
of an inharmonic timbre, like the tubulongs.

> > (or {2,5,7} or {3,5,7}). In fact I'd prefer to do the full 9-limit
> > and 11-limit after that,
>
> at this rate, maybe we better sacrifice those to help the paper get
> done sooner?

No, sacrifice the detailed examination of all 5- and 7-limit temperaments,
but don't leave out the very cases where a computer search gives us the
advantage.

> > and hopefully by then we'll have figured out how
> > to interpolate the cutoffs for the less familiar subsets.
>
> sounds like great fodder for a second paper.

No need to do it so soon.

> > So Gene, how about hitting us with a wide-open list of 7-limit
> linear
> > temperaments, so we can consider where the cutoffs might
> need to go.
>
> not a bad idea. also, i'd like to propose that we report the
> complexity of the simplest temperament that we left off the end of
> each list (in addition to my proposal that we order by complexity).

Report on the ones you want to report on, and leave the rest. For the
7-limit we need miracle and meantone. Maybe 31&6 which is complex but
accurate. Does anybody want twintone, 22&31, 27&31 or 15&19?

Graham

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

> And an example
> of an inharmonic timbre, like the tubulongs.

tricky -- do we assume octave equivalence? we might want to try
assuming it and then not assuming it . . .

> Report on the ones you want to report on, and leave the rest. For
the
> 7-limit we need miracle and meantone. Maybe 31&6 which is complex
but
> accurate. Does anybody want twintone, 22&31, 27&31 or 15&19?

should we go through the same process for 7-limit that we went
through for 5-limit?

In-Reply-To: <aamsqq+763k@eGroups.com>
Me:
> > And an example
> > of an inharmonic timbre, like the tubulongs.

Paul:
> tricky -- do we assume octave equivalence? we might want to try
> assuming it and then not assuming it . . .

Do it both ways so we can explain the difference. Tubulongs may not be
the best example of this because the timbre does involve tritones.

> should we go through the same process for 7-limit that we went
> through for 5-limit?

Yes, but not for the first paper.

Graham

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

> > should we go through the same process for 7-limit that we went
> > through for 5-limit?
>
> Yes, but not for the first paper.

well, i don't know where you were when it appeared confirmed that the
paper was going to consist of this same process for {2, 3, 5}, {2, 3,
5, 7}, {2, 3, 7}, {2, 5, 7}, and {3, 5, 7}, and no other cases. you
certainly didn't speak up then.

now that we've shattered this myth of consensus, and now that gene
isn't in the mood to churn out more results for us, there doesn't
look like much hope for a co-authored paper now. am i wrong to be so
pessimistic?

--- In tuning-math@y..., "emotionaljourney22" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@y..., graham@m... wrote:
>
> > > should we go through the same process for 7-limit that we went
> > > through for 5-limit?
> >
> > Yes, but not for the first paper.

That process won't take anywhere near as long as it did the first
time.

> well, i don't know where you were when it appeared confirmed that
the
> paper was going to consist of this same process for {2, 3, 5}, {2,
3,
> 5, 7}, {2, 3, 7}, {2, 5, 7}, and {3, 5, 7}, and no other cases. you
> certainly didn't speak up then.

I don't remember this either, but I think it's a good idea.

In-Reply-To: <aapnav+d3g3@eGroups.com>
emotionaljourney22 wrote:

> well, i don't know where you were when it appeared confirmed that the
> paper was going to consist of this same process for {2, 3, 5}, {2, 3,
> 5, 7}, {2, 3, 7}, {2, 5, 7}, and {3, 5, 7}, and no other cases. you
> certainly didn't speak up then.

I probably assumed it wouldn't be a paper I'd be working on.

> now that we've shattered this myth of consensus, and now that gene
> isn't in the mood to churn out more results for us, there doesn't
> look like much hope for a co-authored paper now. am i wrong to be so
> pessimistic?

I wouldn't object to publishing three or four papers as one with joint
authorship. But why not write up what we know now? If you're still
relying on Gene to produce the results, it suggests even you don't
understand the method.

Graham