hi everybodyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

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