No the revelation is that it's only the numerator that needs a soapfar. The denominator does better with only a copfr.cmloegcmluin wrote: ↑Wed Jul 01, 2020 3:41 pmI guess I'm still a bit confused about this bit. If there's a "revelation of k=0, c≠0" is it that we actually throw away the entire denominator?

But prior to my latest, the copfr was being applied to the numerator as well as the denominator. This seems unnecessary as "c" just competes with "w" there, but with the complication that the soapfar compresses its repeat-counts to the power y while the copfr does not. I wanted to free the numerator from interference by the copfr.

Ha. Great. Or the biggerator and the smallerator. Or the sopferator and the copferator. Or, so I can keep using n and d, the numinator and diminuator (from numinous and diminutive).Or maybe in order to avoid potential confusion with the numerator and denominator of the input ratio we should call these the "greaterator" and "lesserator", in which case I mean we throw away the lesserator?

No we definitely don't want to throw away the diminuator. We want to give it its own soapfar, tailored just for it. But it turns out, when you ask it what it wants, by letting it choose an independent weight for every prime, it doesn't actually want a full blown soapfar. It's quite happy, thank you very much, with an ever-so-slightly modified copfr, an mcopfr (where 5's only count half).

Actually, the diminuator wouldn't mind if you wanted to raise its monzo terms to a power before summing them. So an mcopf

**a**r. But the diminuator wants a power

*greater*than one, where the numinator wants a power

*less*than 1. I changed my mind about using Y and y for the n and d powers. I'll keep y for the numinator and use v for the diminuator.