--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> >> >> >I'm arguing that, along this particular line of thinking,
> >> >> >> >complexity does one thing to music, and error another, but
> >> >> >> >there's no urgent reason more of one should limit your
> >> >> >> >tolerance for the other . . .
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Taking this to its logical extreme, wouldn't we abandon
> >> >> >> badness alltogether?
> >> >>
> >> >> >No, it would just become 'rectangular', as Dave noted.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't follow that.
> >> >
> >> >Your badness function would become max(a*complexity, b*error),
> >> >thus having rectangular contours.
> >>
> >> More of one can here influence the tolerance for the other.
> >
> >Not true.
>
> Actually what are a and b?
Constants.
> But Yes, true. Increasing my tolerance for complexity
simultaneously
> increases my tolerance for error, since this is Max().
I have no idea why you say that. However, when I said "more of one",
I didn't mean "more tolerance for one", I simply meant "higher values
of one".
... Actually what are a and b? But Yes, true. Increasing my tolerance for complexity simultaneously increases my tolerance for error, since this is Max(). ...
... Constants. ... simultaneously ... I have no idea why you say that. However, when I said "more of one", I didn't mean "more tolerance for one", I simply...
... If I have a certain expectation of max error and a separate expectation of max complexity, but I can't measure them directly, I have to use Dave's formula,...
... Max(). ... one", ... values ... More of whatever you happened to expect less of? What do you mean? Can you explain with an example? ... A badness function...
... If I'm bounding a list of temperaments with Dave's formula only, and I desire that error not exceed 10 cents rms and complexity not exceed 20 notes (and a...
... // ... Ok, I walked into that one by giving fixed bounds on what I wanted. But re. your original suggestion (above), for any fixed version of the formula,...
... Nonsense, eh? This is pretty much the definition of Max(). It throws away information on the smaller thing. You can tweak your precious constants after...
... wanted. ... of ... Yes -- thus more of one has no effect on the tolerance for the other - - it's either the bigger thing, making the tolerance for the...
... Paul and Carl, I think you're both right. You're just talking about slightly different things. As a function, max(x,y) "depends on" both x and y but at any...
... I thought he was saying only the latter, and to him that disqualifies it as being considered as a "badness" function. We may disagree, but that's hardly...
... If you make the bigger one bigger, you're also allowing the smaller one to get bigger without knowing about it. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding "tolerance"...
... I'm afraid I can make no sense of this, no matter which way I think about it. Can you give an example? ... Did what I tried to clarify at the end of this...
Sorry for my delay in entering this discussion, but I'm a Digest subscriber. I think Carl's objection is that he has a expectation that the badness function...
... Hi David! I didn't know you read tuning-math. Well, I was actually arguing that badness of any kind would be of no use to someone who considers error and...
Even though we were using a different complexity measure on January 27 (L-inf instead of L1), my current list of 25 is quite close to this one. So the method...
... This appears, to the best of my fading recollection, to be the temperament behind Andrzej Gawel's 19-of-36-equal scale. Does anyone have the Mills tuning...
... Some months back I ganked all the stuff on the mills site I could find. It isn't much, and the string "gawel" apparently doesn't appear within. However,...
... the ... Now IN!! ... Gawel -- IN!!! ... Now IN!!!!!Shelovesyouyeahyeahyeah ... That's all, folks! All 28 I'm including were in the top 30 of the "Hermanic"...
... Is this now the full list? ... I'm suggesting calling this "augmented", since the TOP generators are close to 5-limit augmented. ... This isn't too close...
... Only at the cost of ever-increasing complexity. If we cap badness to something reasonable, we get only a few possibilities, or sometimes only one. However,...
... My name was related to a porcupine, but there's no reason to stick to New World porcupines. Old World porcupines like hedgehogs are *not* related, but I...
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Offline 
Send Email