on this list,

one group of people is talking about equal temperaments which belong

to important families of tunings (each family being where a

particular set of unison vectors vanishes),

another group is concerned with notating equal temperaments according

to where the potential unison vectors lie relative to their chains of

fifths,

and the two groups are not talking to one another.

am i perceiving the situation correctly?

Hi Paul,

I think I understand the point you're making, and it's a good one, but

I don't think you have described the situation correctly.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:

> on this list,

>

> one group of people is talking about equal temperaments which belong

> to important families of tunings (each family being where a

> particular set of unison vectors vanishes),

You mean the folks searching for and cataloging good temperaments, in

particular linear temperaments (LTs) at various odd limits?

> another group is concerned with notating equal temperaments according

> to where the potential unison vectors lie relative to their chains of

> fifths,

You mean the "Common notation .." thread. I don't know what you mean

by "potential" unison vectors. Only commas that _don't_ vanish are of

any use in notating a temperament.

> and the two groups are not talking to one another.

>

> am i perceiving the situation correctly?

I was actively involved in the linear temperament effort up until 7-limit.

Gene has contributed to the Common notation thread regarding notating

linear temperaments. But I agree he seems to have been following the

idea that a temperament can be notated adequately using the notation

for its most representative ET, and apparently assuming that George

and I have already found the best notation for that ET (within the

constraints we have imposed upon ourselves). neither of which may e true.

Although chains of fifths are the backbone of the sagittal notation,

this does not prevent it from notating ETs in LT-specific ways, so the

same ET can be notated differently depending on which LT you are

considering it as. I recently gave some examples in a "Notating Linear

Temperaments" thread (or some such), but no one responded or carried

it forward.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan <d.keenan@u...>" <d.keenan@u...> wrote:

> Gene has contributed to the Common notation thread regarding notating

> linear temperaments. But I agree he seems to have been following the

> idea that a temperament can be notated adequately using the notation

> for its most representative ET, and apparently assuming that George

> and I have already found the best notation for that ET (within the

> constraints we have imposed upon ourselves). neither of which may e true.

Oh. Well, darn.

> Although chains of fifths are the backbone of the sagittal notation,

> this does not prevent it from notating ETs in LT-specific ways, so the

> same ET can be notated differently depending on which LT you are

> considering it as. I recently gave some examples in a "Notating Linear

> Temperaments" thread (or some such), but no one responded or carried

> it forward.

I can't follow these things when they involve the symbols, not at least unless I have a key handy (which I don't.)

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus

<wallyesterpaulrus@y...>" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:

> on this list,

>

> one group of people is talking about equal temperaments which

belong

> to important families of tunings (each family being where a

> particular set of unison vectors vanishes),

>

> another group is concerned with notating equal temperaments

according

> to where the potential unison vectors lie relative to their chains

of

> fifths,

>

> and the two groups are not talking to one another.

>

> am i perceiving the situation correctly?

Hi, Paul. Thanks for checking up on us.

I did participate in the discussions about hemififth and kleismic

temperaments (but Gene eventually realized that I was really

addressing catakleismic). Nothing in these discussions resulted in

any changes to any ET notations that Dave and I have already agreed

on. The catakleismic discussion did cover some larger divisions that

we have not yet addressed, so I can't say yet how the results using

these two approaches might differ. Another factor in all of this is

our recent introduction of the 5' comma (traditional 5-schisma) into

the notation, which is going to affect how some of these things are

done.

So there has been a limited amount of communication about these

things, but we've been pretty busy working on our separate

approaches, and eventually we're going to have to bring it all

together and compare notes.

--George

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith

<genewardsmith@j...>" <genewardsmith@j...> wrote:

> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan <d.keenan@u...>"

<d.keenan@u...> wrote:

>

> > Gene has contributed to the Common notation thread regarding

notating

> > linear temperaments. But I agree he seems to have been following

the

> > idea that a temperament can be notated adequately using the

notation

> > for its most representative ET, and apparently assuming that

George

> > and I have already found the best notation for that ET (within the

> > constraints we have imposed upon ourselves). neither of which may

e true.

>

> Oh. Well, darn.

>

> > Although chains of fifths are the backbone of the sagittal

notation,

> > this does not prevent it from notating ETs in LT-specific ways,

so the

> > same ET can be notated differently depending on which LT you are

> > considering it as. I recently gave some examples in a "Notating

Linear

> > Temperaments" thread (or some such), but no one responded or

carried

> > it forward.

>

> I can't follow these things when they involve the symbols, not at

least unless I have a key handy (which I don't.)

I mentioned in message #5403 that I made a quick-reference table for

the most common symbols in a file when I had to answer your question

about "what the 11-diesis is":

/tuning-

math/files/secor/notation/quickref.txt

The actual symbols may be seen in these files:

/tuning-

math/files/secor/notation/AdaptJI.gif

/tuning-

math/files/secor/notation/Symbols6.gif

I hope that this is good enough for now, until we have a decent

explanation of the notation available.

--George