hippopothesis

So if T[n] is a linear temperament when n is a MOS, what
is T[n] when n isn't? The wolf introduces exactly 1 extra
comma? Do we get a planar version of the same temperament?
I think not. In general is there any sense to thinking of
chains of generators? Clearly.

-Carl

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

> So if T[n] is a linear temperament when n is a MOS, what
> is T[n] when n isn't?

T[n] is never a temperament--it is a scale.

>> So if T[n] is a linear temperament when n is a MOS, what
>> is T[n] when n isn't?
>
>T[n] is never a temperament--it is a scale.

Right, because temperaments are infinite or some such. But
then the hypothesis needs to be rephrased.

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> So if T[n] is a linear temperament when n is a MOS, what
> >> is T[n] when n isn't?
> >
> >T[n] is never a temperament--it is a scale.
>
> Right, because temperaments are infinite or some such. But
> then the hypothesis needs to be rephrased.

why?

>> >> So if T[n] is a linear temperament when n is a MOS, what
>> >> is T[n] when n isn't?
>> >
>> >T[n] is never a temperament--it is a scale.
>>
>> Right, because temperaments are infinite or some such. But
>> then the hypothesis needs to be rephrased.
>
>why?

What is the official phrasing?

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> >> So if T[n] is a linear temperament when n is a MOS, what
> >> >> is T[n] when n isn't?
> >> >
> >> >T[n] is never a temperament--it is a scale.
> >>
> >> Right, because temperaments are infinite or some such. But
> >> then the hypothesis needs to be rephrased.
> >
> >why?
>
> What is the official phrasing?
>
> -Carl

i don't know if there's an "official" one, but do any of them need to
be rephrased? i don't think so.

>i don't know if there's an "official" one, but do any of them need to
>be rephrased? i don't think so.

What's one of them?

-Carl

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >i don't know if there's an "official" one, but do any of them need
to
> >be rephrased? i don't think so.
>
> What's one of them?
>
> -Carl

when all but one of the defining unison vectors of a fokker
periodicity block are regularly tempered out, the result is a
distributionally even scale.

>> What's one of them?
>>
>> -Carl
>
>when all but one of the defining unison vectors of a fokker
>periodicity block are regularly tempered out, the result is a
>distributionally even scale.

Cool (no mention of "linear temperament").

-Carl