Fw: [tuning-math] Re: mathematical model of torsion-block symmetry?

Yahoo has been bouncing my messages back to me lately.
i'm trying this one again.

-monz

----- Original Message -----
From: "monz" <monz@attglobal.net>
To: <tuning-math@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 1:37 AM
Subject: Re: [tuning-math] Re: mathematical model of torsion-block symmetry?

> hi Gene,
>
> > From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@juno.com>
> > To: <tuning-math@yahoogroups.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 8:27 PM
> > Subject: [tuning-math] Re: mathematical model of torsion-block symmetry?
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning-math@y..., "Hans Straub" <straub@d...> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Now, the quotient module being finite...
> > > >
> > > > Whups--you are sticking "2" into the mix when you conclude this.
> > > > The math is more straightforward if you treat 2 as just another
prime
> number.
> > > >
> > >
> > > 2 is just another prime number, sure - but where exactly do you think
I
> > > confuse something?
> >
> > Monzo's example was the block defined by 2048/2025 and 648/625;
> > if we mod out the free group on three generators {2,3,5} by the
> > subgroup defined by the above, we produce a mapping onto Z x Z/2Z.
> > This has a nontrivial torsion part, so the block is a torsion block.
> >
> > Using wedge products, which in the 5-limit we can identify with
> > the cross-product, we have 2048/2025 ^ 648/625 = [11 -4 -2] ^ [3 4 -4] =
> > [24 38 56] = 2 * [12 19 28], showing the 2-torsion. For this to work,
> > the vectors need to be defined using the 2; Monzo unfortunately left
> > this off and the page should be changed.
>
>
>
> hmmm ... somewhere on this list, about a month or two back, you
> wrote a post explaining how to do the wedgie, and i had set up
> a spreadsheet to do the calculation according to your formula.
> the answer i just got for this one was: [0 0 24 56 -38 0].
>
>
> regarding the webpage:
> /tuning-math/files/dict/torsion.htm
>
> ... not really knowing how to edit down what i already have
> in the "torsion" definition, which is now quite confusing to me,
> i simply added the above quote to the bottom of the "real"
> definition (around the middle of the page).
>
> Gene, is there any way that you could edit this mess into
> one good solid definition? perhaps with commentary after
> it, but *useful* commentary?
>
>
>
> -monz
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>