Loglog

I checked the files I saved of the graphs being posted, and found no
loglog examples. I then went over to tuning-files, and found one
example, uploaded today. I can't tell by looking at it what the logs
are logs of, however. Clarifying this would be nice. It would also be
nice if, having created all these loglog images, they were made
available to the rest of us.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> I checked the files I saved of the graphs being posted, and found
no
> loglog examples. I then went over to tuning-files, and found one
> example,

You missed quite a few then, like

/tuning-math/files/Erlich/gene1.gif

/tuning-math/files/Erlich/herman2m.gif

/tuning-math/files/Erlich/herman2r.gif

/tuning-math/files/Erlich/herman2s.gif

/tuning-math/files/Erlich/dave2.gif

/tuning-math/files/Erlich/dave4.gif

/tuning-math/files/Paul/com5monz.gif

/tuning-math/files/Paul/com5rat.gif

> uploaded today.

Yes, for you. No comments, just general derision?

> I can't tell by looking at it what the logs
> are logs of, however. Clarifying this would be nice.

Complexity and error -- what else could it be? Some of the graphs
above are even labeled ;)

> It would also be
> nice if, having created all these loglog images, they were made
> available to the rest of us.

Yes, I've tried to be nice like this, and will continue to do so.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> > I checked the files I saved of the graphs being posted, and found
> no
> > loglog examples. I then went over to tuning-files, and found one
> > example,
>
> You missed quite a few then,

My apologies again, these used log of error, but not log of
complexity. Using log of complexity crammed all the interesting stuff
to the far left to the point of illegibility, in the cases I
originally tried.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> > I checked the files I saved of the graphs being posted, and found
> no
> > loglog examples. I then went over to tuning-files, and found one
> > example,
>
> You missed quite a few then, like

In none of the cases where the axes are labled does it say any of
these are loglog plots. Moreover, they are very, very diffult to make
any sense of, because they are too busy, with far too many points and
contour lines all over the place.
> /tuning-math/files/Paul/com5rat.gif
>
> > uploaded today.
>
> Yes, for you. No comments, just general derision?

I made a comment, which is that the axes are unlabled and I don't
know what I am looking at.

> > I can't tell by looking at it what the logs
> > are logs of, however. Clarifying this would be nice.
>
> Complexity and error -- what else could it be? Some of the graphs
> above are even labeled ;)

I have no idea what it is unless you tell me. As I've already pointed
out, none of the graphs with labels say they are loglog plots.

> > It would also be
> > nice if, having created all these loglog images, they were made
> > available to the rest of us.
>
> Yes, I've tried to be nice like this, and will continue to do so.

You seem awfully snippy about it. Can you simply point out any
examples of plots of temperaments where the axes are in terms of logs
of TOP complexity and error?

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:

> My apologies again, these used log of error, but not log of
> complexity. Using log of complexity crammed all the interesting
stuff
> to the far left to the point of illegibility, in the cases I
> originally tried.

Sounds like a reason to get rid of most of your points, which are
gumming up the works anyway, and look at the good stuff.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
> wrote:
>
> > My apologies again, these used log of error, but not log of
> > complexity. Using log of complexity crammed all the interesting
> stuff
> > to the far left to the point of illegibility, in the cases I
> > originally tried.
>
> Sounds like a reason to get rid of most of your points, which are
> gumming up the works anyway, and look at the good stuff.

I actually meant the right, not the left -- but this isn't so much of
a problem for the loglog graph I made for you before and for the
current batch, is it?

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:

> I actually meant the right, not the left -- but this isn't so much
of
> a problem for the loglog graph I made for you before and for the
> current batch, is it?

No, the good stuff lies along lines, making the whole moat business
both much easier and far more logical--in case that matters to anyone.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
> wrote:
>
> > I actually meant the right, not the left -- but this isn't so much
> of
> > a problem for the loglog graph I made for you before and for the
> > current batch, is it?
>
> No, the good stuff lies along lines, making the whole moat business
> both much easier and far more logical--in case that matters to anyone.

On the loglog plot. The good stuff looks to me like a bite taken out
of the lower left side of the sheet of temperaments. Teeth marks and
all ;-).

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...>
wrote:

> > No, the good stuff lies along lines, making the whole moat
business
> > both much easier and far more logical--in case that matters to
anyone.
>
> On the loglog plot. The good stuff looks to me like a bite taken out
> of the lower left side of the sheet of temperaments. Teeth marks and
> all ;-).

I do see some snaggle teeth, like 171 on the 7-limit plot. Should 171
be included? If you want to go that high on complexity, obviously
yes. If you don't, obviously no. Yhe dreaded complexity bound strikes
again.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Keenan" <d.keenan@b...>
wrote:

> > No, the good stuff lies along lines, making the whole moat
business
> > both much easier and far more logical--in case that matters to
anyone.
>
> On the loglog plot. The good stuff looks to me like a bite taken out
> of the lower left side of the sheet of temperaments. Teeth marks and
> all ;-).

I do see some snaggle teeth, like 171 on the 7-limit plot. Should 171
be included? If you want to go that high on complexity, obviously
yes. If you don't, obviously no. Yhe dreaded complexity bound strikes
again.