--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith"
<gwsmith@s...>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Did either of you guys look at the loglog version of the moat-
of-
> 23 7-
> > > limit linear temperaments?
> >
> > I have a plot with unlabled axes and a curved red line on it.
> > Obviously, since I don't know what is being plotted, I draw no
> >conclusion.
>
> I've already clarified this for you!!

Again: The horizontal axis, as always, is *complexity*. The vertical
axis, as always, is *error*. We've already established we're on the
same page on those. It's easy to see, by the tick marks, if either or
both of the axes is scaled logarithmically. The red line is our
proposed moat. And again, the 7-limit 'linear' temperaments are
indexed as follows (I show the first three numbers in the val-wedgie,
since you feel they are the most important):

1) 1 4 10
2) 2 -4 -4
3) 5 1 12
4) 7 9 13
5) 1 4 -2
6) 3 0 -6
7) 4 -3 2
8) 2 8 1
9) 6 5 3
10) 1 9 -2
11) 2 8 8
12) 6 -7 -2
13) 6 10 10
14) 7 -3 8
15) 4 4 4
16) 1 -8 -14
17) 3 0 6
18) 0 0 12
19) 1 4 -9
20) 0 5 0
21) 3 12 -1
22) 10 9 7
23) 3 5 -6
24) 9 5 -3
25) 8 6 6
26) 6 -2 -2
27) 6 5 22
28) 3 12 11
29) 2 -9 -4
30) 11 13 17
31) 6 10 3
32) 4 2 2