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

> The article deals only with linear temperaments of octave-repeating
> octave-equivalent scales, so the reader is only interested in how
many
> periods there are modulo the number in the octave.

Someone reading about temperaments presumably wants to know what they
are. Your sloppy method means they must work at it even to get the
mapping of primes in terms of period and generator. How can you
simultaneously maintain you are dumbing down *and* increase the
number of mathematical hoops you expect your readers to jump through?
If you want to make things easy, you are going about it in a very,
very bad way.

So when the period
> _is_ the octave these are all zero and I prefer to omit them. It's
> easier to omit them without confusion if they come _last_. I do not
> want to use any vector or matrix math in the article.

It's pitched at
> an audience with more basic math skills.

So that is why you insist on making the math difficult??

> The article deals only with octave-repeating octave-equivalent
scales
> so why should I bother saying that there are zero generators in the
> 1:2 every time.

You should "bother" to give your poor readers a break by explicitly
giving them a mapping to primes. What is this--pledge week for
microtonalists? If they understand your article without the secret
decoder ring they are in? In any case sloppy is sloppy.

> Commas and wedgies are utterly irrelevant to my article.

Commas are irrelevant to explaining temperaments? I don't think so.
Once again, you propose leaving your readers clueless.