## Search found 27 matches

- Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:03 am
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: 581EDO
- Replies:
**17** - Views:
**3369**

### Re: 581EDO

I posted the following, regarding notation of 581-EDO, on 9 April 2017 to a thread in the Facebook group Xenharmonic Alliance Mathematical Theory, and am reposting it here at Dave Keenan's request. Although most of this already appears in my previous postings here, my suggestion of the 85:121 schism...

- Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:28 pm
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**7014**

### Re: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths

George, I note that you have implicitly accepted, without discussion, my proposed cutoffs at fifth sizes narrower than 19-edo and wider than 22-edo. Some might consider that 26-edo should be notated as a meantone. And you have implicitly accepted my suggestion that all such edos with narrow fifths ...

- Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:09 pm
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**7014**

### Re: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths

Symbol Pronunciation Limma fractions represented Comments :|\): * ktai 55L 4/7* Olympian 55L is :.::(|): (495:512, limma less 55C) :|\ \: * chai 7L 3/5*, 2/3*, 5/7*, 3/4* Olympian 7L is :.::(|\: (27:28, limma less 7C) :||): = :!)::#:* tao-sharp 4/5*, 5/6**, 6/7* Olympian is :||)::.::.: = :!)::.::.:...

- Thu Jan 12, 2017 1:56 pm
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**7014**

### Re: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths

Symbol Pronunciation Apotome fractions represented Comments :(|(: * janai 7:13S* 4/10* For 71-EDO*; olympian :(|(::.::.: Why not Symbol Pronunciation Apotome fractions represented Comments :/ /|: * phai 7:17S* 4/10* For 71-EDO*; olympian :/ /|::.::.: ? For that matter, why not Symbol Pronunciation ...

- Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:06 am
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**7014**

### Re: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths

That's great stuff George. Thanks. To help folks evaluate it (OK, to help me ), I have a couple of requests. 1. Could you please give a table showing all the symbols you have used, in size order, and which apotome and limma fractions they correspond to. Similar to the one of mine that you quoted. 2...

- Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:04 pm
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths
- Replies:
**41** - Views:
**7014**

### Re: A proposal to simplify the notation of EDOs with bad fifths

Presently, all Sagittal EDO notations are JI-based, in the sense that a symbol always represents the tempered size of its comma role in just intonation. But this results in an explosion of obscure symbols being used for the EDOs in the red and amber areas, many of which are very simple and so don't...

- Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:13 am
- Forum: Comparison with other notation systems
- Topic: How should naturals be used with Sagittal?
- Replies:
**3** - Views:
**1542**

### Re: How should naturals be used with Sagittal?

Hi Dave, We don't have an official policy on the use of naturals with Sagittals, but if we did, I think that Sagittal symbols (both pure and mixed) should be treated the same as conventional sharps and flats. Therefore, Sagittal accidentals are always sticky for the remainder of the measure, and the...

- Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:00 am
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: 581EDO
- Replies:
**17** - Views:
**3369**

### Re: 581EDO

Thanks for all this George, for taking the time to look into this so deeply. I wouldn't have thought it would be quite this tricky, since 581 is not too far from 23- and 25-limit JI, and with 270 looking not too radical, I thought 581 would be only a bit of gap-filling from there. Obviously, I was ...

- Thu Jun 23, 2016 7:02 am
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: 581EDO
- Replies:
**17** - Views:
**3369**

### Re: 581EDO

Some combinations would need to be avoided, e.g., :'::|(::.: for 3deg581, since this symbol is already defined as 1225k (19600:19683) and would be 5deg581. Since :.::~|::': is not presently defined, that could be used instead. I made a mistake in the foregoing. :~|: is 5deg581, so :.::~|::': would ...

- Thu Jun 23, 2016 6:19 am
- Forum: Equal Division notations
- Topic: 581EDO
- Replies:
**17** - Views:
**3369**

### Re: 581EDO

I have a solution for notating 1deg581: Define the symbol :'::|::.: as 17:121n (the 17:121-schismina, 1088:1089). This is slightly larger than 5:19n (1215:1216, ~1.424c), which is notated :.::)|: and vanishes in 581-EDO. This combination of opposite-altering diacritics (or accent marks) may then be ...