What kind of math?

One could ask how is it possible to write about math and music without being both mathematician and musician? I think there are more serious questions.

How is it possible that a bunch of musicians using plenty of math objects, presumed to have sense for music, never write about the musical signification of all that?

I don't understand, for instance, why numbers having absolutely no sense for the human perception are so currently in use on the List.

Seeing so much numerical orgies, I ask to me, is it truly a difference between that and numerology. Say me what you name and I will say what you do! A mathematician (who is not a tuning fan) normally name structures while a numerologist keep focus on numbers. What is the actual practice ?

I ceased to post (on tuning-math) after the message "Convexity lemma". It seems that math without numbers was not very popular there, but perhaps the sense of this lemma was too dangerous to understand.

-----

Having difficulty with English, I wrote mainly about math on the Tuning Lists. It was far more easy to use that vocabulary. Happily I discover a French List on which I hope to go far beyond maths.

Since I posted there a message (Gammes et principes Hellegouarch) showing the convergence between Wilson CS, Hellegouarch quotient-group, Fokker periodicity block and congruity condition of gammier, I give the reference.

http://www.ircam.fr/listes/archives/mamuphi/msg00255.html

I signal I was not able to retain a weak attack against Keenan, Erlich, Breed et alt. refering to the ib1215 gammier. I don't apologize about that for there is nothing personal in that. I keep respect for these persons and their works. I express only the opinion it misses a foundation.

I work on my next post starting with serialism and asking how sonic matter is abilitated to hold musical sense ? Since sense is not hold by sensitive qualities but differences in quality, I study the structure of the differences field for each sonic parameter, the natural expressive strategies of musical creation and interpretation, the privilegied function of the pitch height interval, etc. in view to answer a simple question about the chord theorem (the object of a precedent message).

Pierre

--- In tuning@y..., "Pierre Lamothe" <plamothe@a...> wrote:

> I don't understand, for instance, why numbers having absolutely no
> sense for the human perception are so currently in use on the List.

Funny, that's how I feel about your work, Pierre! I know you've tried
to explain it to me, but you give me mathematical axiom systems with
no relation, that I can discern, to human musical perception. I guess
our communication problems go both ways.

>
> Seeing so much numerical orgies, I ask to me, is it truly a >
difference between that and numerology.

Again, it is _your_ work that appears to me to be numerology. My
apologies, but I guess we have some philosophical differences!

>Say me what you name and I will say what you do! A mathematician >
(who is not a tuning fan) normally name structures while a
>numerologist keep focus on numbers. What is the actual practice ?

Gene and I especially focus on structures, with numbers coming in to
elucidate particular examples.

> I ceased to post (on tuning-math) after the message "Convexity
>lemma". It seems that math without numbers was not very popular
>there,

Nonsense.

> but perhaps the sense of this lemma was too dangerous to understand.

I beg you to reconsider this conclusion. Gene is a fine
mathematician, and perhaps with his help, we can come to a better
understanding of your theories. I welcome generalized abstraction
over particular numbers anytime -- I hope my post to Jon Szanto,
which he printed out a few months ago, makes this clear. But Pierre,
to convince me of the worth of your theories, you will have to go
beyond a mere mathematical edifice and ground your axioms in musical,
perceptual considerations. For I am a musician most of all and even
the fanciest mathematical constructions will have little interest for
me if they are not motivated by the types of questions I would ask as
a musician.
>
> Since I posted there a message (Gammes et principes Hellegouarch)
showing the convergence between Wilson CS, Hellegouarch quotient-
group, Fokker periodicity block and congruity condition of gammier, I
give the reference.
>
> http://www.ircam.fr/listes/archives/mamuphi/msg00255.html

I will try to look at this and I hope Gene will too.

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Pierre Lamothe" <plamothe@a...> wrote:

> > I don't understand, for instance, why numbers having absolutely
no
> > sense for the human perception are so currently in use on the
List.

> Funny, that's how I feel about your work, Pierre! I know you've
tried
> to explain it to me, but you give me mathematical axiom systems
with
> no relation, that I can discern, to human musical perception. I
guess
> our communication problems go both ways.

I have just the opposite problem. It looks to me like Pierre has some
interesting ideas concerning generation of scales by means of certain
operators, but he doesn't lay everything out in terms of abstract,
formal definitions in anything I've read, but gives very abbreviated
numerical examples which seem to leave out some salient points.

> > http://www.ircam.fr/listes/archives/mamuphi/msg00255.html
>
> I will try to look at this and I hope Gene will too.

My French is worse than Pierre's English, but I'll give it a shot
anyway.

--- In tuning@y..., "Pierre Lamothe" <plamothe@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_30626.html#30626

>
> Having difficulty with English, I wrote mainly about math on the
Tuning Lists. It was far more easy to use that vocabulary. Happily I
discover a French List on which I hope to go far beyond maths.
>

Hello Pierre...

Ummm, anybody notice that Pierre's English has improved about 500%.

Great going, Pierre... you must have been studying it quite a bit:
you're almost fluent now... Wish I could do that with my French...

Joseph Pehrson