monz incorrect 'inconsistency'

again staring at my favorite page,

http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/eqtemp.htm

monz, you unfortunately botched the explanation of inconsistency
under 24-equal. you seem to equate consistency with the vanishing of
36:35, which of course it has nothing to do with.

you write,

'While 24edo gives an approximation of 7 which is better than that of
12edo, it is inconsistent with the approximation given by the sum of
24edo representations of 5-limit intervals: the best "perfect 5th" is
14 degrees of 24edo, and the best "minor 3rd" is 6 degrees, which add
up to 20 degrees, but the best 24edo approximation to the ("8ve"-
reduced) 7th harmonic is 19 degrees.'

i'm afraid this logic would call ji inconsistent, since 9/5 does not
equal 7/4! please correct this if at all possible . . . i'm pretty
sure you know the correct 24-equal inconsistency explanation as you
put some time into explaining it to others here just a few days
ago . . .

> From: paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 5:23 AM
> Subject: [tuning] monz incorrect 'inconsistency'
>
>
> again staring at my favorite page,
>
> http://www.ixpres.com/interval/dict/eqtemp.htm
>
> monz, you unfortunately botched the explanation of inconsistency
> under 24-equal. you seem to equate consistency with the vanishing of
> 36:35, which of course it has nothing to do with.
>
> you write,
>
> 'While 24edo gives an approximation of 7 which is better than that of
> 12edo, it is inconsistent with the approximation given by the sum of
> 24edo representations of 5-limit intervals: the best "perfect 5th" is
> 14 degrees of 24edo, and the best "minor 3rd" is 6 degrees, which add
> up to 20 degrees, but the best 24edo approximation to the ("8ve"-
> reduced) 7th harmonic is 19 degrees.'
>
> i'm afraid this logic would call ji inconsistent, since 9/5 does not
> equal 7/4! please correct this if at all possible . . . i'm pretty
> sure you know the correct 24-equal inconsistency explanation as you
> put some time into explaining it to others here just a few days
> ago . . .

whew! i must have been really overworked when i wrote that!
thanks, paul ... what would i do without you?

it's been fixed ... take a look.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:

> whew! i must have been really overworked when i wrote that!
> thanks, paul ... what would i do without you?
>
> it's been fixed ... take a look.

great.

but what about all the other stuff?

and here's another one: you claim *twice* (under 5-equal and again
under 7-equal) that 5-equal has neutral thirds. you might want to hum
a 5-equal scale and check.

> From: paulerlich <paul@stretch-music.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 2:41 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: monz incorrect 'inconsistency'
>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "monz" <joemonz@y...> wrote:
>
> but what about all the other stuff?

gimme a minute! i've been busy.

> and here's another one: you claim *twice* (under
> 5-equal and again under 7-equal) that 5-equal has
> neutral thirds. you might want to hum a 5-equal scale
> and check.

thanks for the eagle eye, paul. can't fix it now,
hopefully soon.

-monz

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com