doulbe N-tET periodicity blocks

>Obviously, the original idea is not correct (if you define N as the
>determinant of the matrix of unison vector exponents), as proved by those
>13-limit double 10-tET periodicity blocks.

I guess the question is then, how do we tell when this will happen? Kees'
idea of sub-blocks seems natural, it's just that the size of the unison
vectors relative to the 2nds isn't what causes it.

I know I could stand to understand better what happens to a block when notes
are transposed by unison vectors -- an issue raised in the gentle
introduction
series but never fully explored. What do you think of an "excursion" on
that,
Paul?

If Kees' idea is right, then triple blocks should exist as well.

-Carl