can someone check this data?

/tuning-math/files/Paul/test.html

Awesome! Sorry I can't help check it.

How'd you get this html? 'd be nice to have a database
with column-sort. If you're doing this in Excel, you can
export as a CSV file, which Yahoo's database thingy can
then import (I assume that's how you did the 5-limit
database?).

Oh, and where are the TM-reduced bases?

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> Awesome! Sorry I can't help check it.
>
> How'd you get this html? 'd be nice to have a database
> with column-sort.

the database on the tuning list is just that.

> Oh, and where are the TM-reduced bases?

the comma, silly goose!

>> Oh, and where are the TM-reduced bases?

>the comma, silly goose!

Don't you need more than one comma for a basis of
these temperaments?

Manuel

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel Op de Coul"
<manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:
>
> >> Oh, and where are the TM-reduced bases?
>
> >the comma, silly goose!
>
> Don't you need more than one comma for a basis of
> these temperaments?
>
> Manuel

no, they're 5-limit linear temperaments, and 2 minus 1 equals 1.

So I've picked a few to check, and got the same results.
Only one very slight difference in the RMS error of meantone,
you have 4.217731 and I got 4.217730, but for the rest they
were exactly the same.

>no, they're 5-limit linear temperaments, and 2 minus 1 equals 1.

Yes, I was temporarily confused.

Manuel

Now I checked more and found a few more differences in RMS values.
I'm beginning to worry about my square root routine. Could someone
else verify, for example for counterschismic, is the RMS error
0.026391 as Paul gives or 0.026394? Gene, Graham?
Thanks,

Manuel

>> Oh, and where are the TM-reduced bases?
>
>the comma, silly goose!

Weird, I didn't see the right side of the page the
first time.

-Carl

Manuel Op de Coul wrote:
> Now I checked more and found a few more differences in RMS values.
> I'm beginning to worry about my square root routine. Could someone
> else verify, for example for counterschismic, is the RMS error
> 0.026391 as Paul gives or 0.026394? Gene, Graham?

Yes, my RMS routine was much wronger, but I've fixed that now. I get 4.217730 cents for meantone and 0.026394 for this 53&306 thing.

Graham

Thanks Graham, good to know.

Manuel

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel Op de Coul"
<manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:
>
> Now I checked more and found a few more differences in RMS values.
> I'm beginning to worry about my square root routine. Could someone
> else verify, for example for counterschismic, is the RMS error
> 0.026391 as Paul gives or 0.026394? Gene, Graham?
> Thanks,
>
> Manuel

i got my rms values from gene or graham originally -- it was the
et/period/generator numbers especially i hoped would be checked.