I suggest that, to reduce the total number of symbols required to cover all the EDOs up to 72, we adopt the alternative notation for 58-edo described in the note at the bottom of page 15 of the XH article. i.e.

Change it from

58:

to

58:

- Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:21 pm
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**3201**

I suggest that, to reduce the total number of symbols required to cover all the EDOs up to 72, we adopt the alternative notation for 58-edo described in the note at the bottom of page 15 of the XH article. i.e.

Change it from

58:

to

58:

Change it from

58:

to

58:

- Tue Jul 24, 2018 11:29 pm
- Forum: Using Sagittal with notation software
- Topic: Compose-key definitions for easy typing of Sagittals
- Replies:
**0** - Views:
**53**

There is a wonderful keyboard mapping utility for Microsoft Windows called WinCompose, written by Sam Hocevar. Similar Compose-key products are available for Linux and MacOS. When used with the Bravura font and the definitions below, it will allow you to type Sagittal characters as easily-remembered...

- Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:53 pm
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**3201**

66 is 1:3:17 consistent. It is not 1:3:p consistent for any other prime p up to 19 (no higher primes were checked). So no useful JI-based notation is possible for it. But the following apotome-fraction notation is acceptable. Although :)~|: is not valid as 2 degrees, it's close. 66: :)|: :)~|: :/|:...

- Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:03 pm
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**3201**

Thanks George. I really appreciating you working on tidying those loose ends. Particularly the following, that affects so many divisions. Yes, I agree that where 13M is used as 1/2 apotome it can be replaced with 13L. However, in each instance we need to check that :/|): is actually valid as 13M (an...

- Tue Jul 24, 2018 10:21 am
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**3201**

I concluded that a native notation [for 44] is much better (and simpler) than a subset notation, so we should omit any mention of a subset notation, since the fifths are not really bad. We came up with slightly different native notations: 44: :)~|: :/|: :(|\: :||\: :~||\: :/||\: (DK 7/20/18; 1:3:5:...

- Mon Jul 23, 2018 6:40 pm
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**3201**

Here is the diagram showing my preferred notations for EDOs from 5 to 72, with symbols up to the 1/2-apotome or 3/4-limma. Steps per limma B:C E:F (diatonic semitone) -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Steps per apotome :b: :#: -2 (chromatic semitone) Subset 11 notation 22s s Add them to get -1...

- Mon Jul 23, 2018 5:00 pm
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**3201**

Here is that diagram showing only my preferred notation types, with each type coloured differently. Steps per limma B:C E:F (diatonic semitone) -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Steps per apotome :b: :#: -2 (chromatic semitone) Subset 11 notation SS Add them to get -1 steps per whole-tone 9 16...

- Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:52 pm
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**3201**

Here's a diagram you can copy and make changes to (preferably highlighting the changes with some colour). It shows what notation types I think we should give (in sagittal.pdf and sag_et.par) for each EDO from 5 to 72, and the order in which I prefer the types. We already have all these notations, of...

- Mon Jul 23, 2018 3:05 pm
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**3201**

On second thoughts: There are two reasons for making [44] a subset of 176-EDO: 1) 176 is a much better division than 132; and 2) The notation for 88-EDO is as a subset of 176, so the tones common to 44 and 88 would be notated alike. When you say 176 is "better" than 132, I assume you're re...

- Sat Jul 21, 2018 5:51 pm
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**3201**

72 is as good a cutoff as any. As I said before, I don't think anyone is going to refret a guitar to any division this complex. I agree. But I don't understand why this is relevant to whether or not a division should have a native fifth notation. There are many other things people may want to do wi...