back to list

a whole bunch of posts without much math

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

10/4/2003 12:15:33 PM

I can't believe I'm reading (for the first time) all these posts here
about *notation* and they don't even have all the much math in them!

This is the kind of material that should be on the MAIN Tuning List,
in my opinion.

Only if the materials gets excessively technical so that only a *few*
people can follow it should it be on *Tuning Math...*

That's the way these forums have initially been set up and, I feel,
Tuning Math has really wandered into general tuning theory.

When an entire *notation* is created over here, as in the case of
Sagittal, that's a topic for the *general* list. Mathematical
details and specifics can be worked out over here, but that's not the
sense of the last 100 posts (at least) or so I'm reading over here!

And who am *I* to proclaim an opinion on this over here? Well,
dunno, but I have a right to an opinion, and this is it!

J. Pehrson

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

10/4/2003 12:39:26 PM

>I can't believe I'm reading (for the first time) all these posts here
>about *notation* and they don't even have all the much math in them!
>
>This is the kind of material that should be on the MAIN Tuning List,
>in my opinion.

I think we should start a list for the duplicate posts that you like
to make. Every time you get going, you just continue posting over
there.

>That's the way these forums have initially been set up and, I feel,
>Tuning Math has really wandered into general tuning theory.

Saints preserve us!

>When an entire *notation* is created over here,

Bzzzz.

-Carl

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

10/4/2003 1:04:45 PM

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning-math/message/6983

> >I can't believe I'm reading (for the first time) all these posts
here
> >about *notation* and they don't even have all the much math in
them!
> >
> >This is the kind of material that should be on the MAIN Tuning
List,
> >in my opinion.
>
> I think we should start a list for the duplicate posts that you like
> to make. Every time you get going, you just continue posting over
> there.
>
> >That's the way these forums have initially been set up and, I
feel,
> >Tuning Math has really wandered into general tuning theory.
>
> Saints preserve us!
>
> >When an entire *notation* is created over here,
>
> Bzzzz.
>
> -Carl

***Well, if people can complain about too much math over on the
*main* list, why can't they complain about too *little* math on THIS
list! :)

I guess I'll just have to read this list more... but the character
has changed somewhat from before it seems...

JP

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

10/4/2003 1:19:49 PM

>***Well, if people can complain about too much math over on the
>*main* list, why can't they complain about too *little* math on THIS
>list! :)

:)

>I guess I'll just have to read this list more... but the character
>has changed somewhat from before it seems...

The thing is, we have no way to predict what you or anyone else
will or won't understand.

-Carl

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>

10/4/2003 1:45:06 PM

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning-math/message/6985

> >***Well, if people can complain about too much math over on the
> >*main* list, why can't they complain about too *little* math on
THIS
> >list! :)
>
> :)
>
> >I guess I'll just have to read this list more... but the character
> >has changed somewhat from before it seems...
>
> The thing is, we have no way to predict what you or anyone else
> will or won't understand.
>
> -Carl

***Well, truly I'm sick of the "carping" on the other list... (and I
can say this, because those people never come over here... :)

Maybe this list is turning out more like the *old* tuning list used
to be...

I'll just have to follow it more: "so many lists, so little
time..." :)

JP