Paul32 ordered by a beep-ennealimmal measure

Here are the same temperaments, ordered by error * complexity^(2.8).
If the exponent was 2.7996... then ennealimma and beep would be the
same, but why get fancy? I'm thinking an error cutoff of 15 and a
badness cutoff of 4200 might work, looking at this; that would include
schismic. More ruthlessly, we might try 3500. Really savage would be
3000; bye-bye miracle. Could anyone stand having ennealimmal but not
septimal miracle?

[2, 3, 1, 0, -4, -6] 1099.12138564414
[18, 27, 18, 1, -22, -34] 1099.95303893104
[0, 5, 0, 8, 0, -14] 1352.62028295398
[1, -1, 3, -4, 2, 10] 1429.37604841752
[1, 4, -2, 4, -6, -16] 1586.91771200691
[1, 4, 10, 4, 13, 12] 1689.45478545707
[1, 4, 3, 4, 2, -4] 1749.12068096674
[4, 4, 4, -3, -5, -2] 1926.26540601954
[2, -4, -4, -11, -12, 2] 2188.88089121908
[3, 0, 6, -7, 1, 14] 2201.89086653167
[4, 2, 2, -6, -8, -1] 2306.67858004561
[2, 1, 6, -3, 4, 11] 2392.13957455646
[0, 0, 7, 0, 11, 16] 2580.68840117061
[1, -3, -4, -7, -9, -1] 2669.32332096936
[5, 1, 12, -10, 5, 25] 2766.02839153075
[7, 9, 13, -2, 1, 5] 2852.99148620301
[3, 0, -6, -7, -18, -14] 3181.79058955503
[2, 8, 1, 8, -4, -20] 3182.90486667288
[6, -7, -2, -25, -20, 15] 3222.09329766576
[4, -3, 2, -14, -8, 13] 3448.99841914489
[6, 5, 3, -6, -12, -7] 3680.09543007275
[2, 8, 8, 8, 7, -4] 3694.34379334901
[7, -3, 8, -21, -7, 27] 4145.42670717715
[1, -8, -14, -15, -25, -10] 4177.54976222602
[1, 9, -2, 12, -6, -30] 4235.79245013082
[6, 5, 22, -6, 18, 37] 4465.45695002232
[16, 2, 5, -34, -37, 6] 4705.89445909217
[10, 9, 7, -9, -17, -9] 5386.21535996825
[9, 5, -3, -13, -30, -21] 6333.11068687830
[2, 25, 13, 35, 15, -40] 6657.51406862505
[5, 13, -17, 9, -41, -76] 7388.58309989111
[13, 14, 35, -8, 19, 42] 7785.85505014731

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> Here are the same temperaments, ordered by error * complexity^(2.8).
> If the exponent was 2.7996... then ennealimma and beep would be the
> same, but why get fancy? I'm thinking an error cutoff of 15 and a
> badness cutoff of 4200 might work, looking at this; that would
include
> schismic. More ruthlessly, we might try 3500. Really savage would be
> 3000; bye-bye miracle.

Strange; miracle was #3 according to log-flat, wasn't it?

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> > Here are the same temperaments, ordered by error * complexity^
(2.8).
> > If the exponent was 2.7996... then ennealimma and beep would be
the
> > same, but why get fancy? I'm thinking an error cutoff of 15 and a
> > badness cutoff of 4200 might work, looking at this; that would
> include
> > schismic. More ruthlessly, we might try 3500. Really savage would
be
> > 3000; bye-bye miracle.
>
> Strange; miracle was #3 according to log-flat, wasn't it?

Among your original L_inf top 64, it seems it was indeed #3 by L_1
log-flat:

/tuning-math/message/9048