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

Posted:

**Fri Jul 03, 2020 11:39 am**Thanks for that. I've nudged the purple/rose boundary in this post to include 59b in purple. In fact, I thought, why not define the boundary as the noble number that is the limit of this fibonacci-like sequencevolleo6144 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 03, 2020 1:06 am= 35:36 has the tempered value of a tempered whole-tone minus 32:35, which, in 59b, is 9\59 minus 32:35 (7.73\59), which is 1.37\59, so yeah, it is valid as 1\59b.

4\7, 15\26, 19\33, 34\59b, 53\92b, 87\151bb, 140\243bbbb, 227\394bbbbbb, ...

i.e. 691.3671 ¢.

Maybe all colour boundaries can be noble fractions of the octave.

Of course none of the above ETOs beyond 59b will actually have a notation. Too many steps per apotome or limma. But I don't think anyone will care.

Ha! That's a great observation. There are plenty of spare codepoints at the end of the spartan multi-shaft table,It turns out that, if ||( was an actual symbol in Revo, it would complete the matching shaft sequences for the Rose notation: , with being ||(.

https://w3c.github.io/smufl/gitbook/tab ... ntals.html

so ||( !!( X( and Y( could be added there. If we do, I suggest U+E338 thru U+E33B.

I don't remember why George wanted to leave that gap at U+E31A, U+E31B, but it doesn't seem likely that it was for ||( !!( . If it was for those, it would have made more sense to have gaps at U+E310, U+E311 and U+E32C, U+E32D. And it seems that, if we're keeping the gap at U+E31A, U+E31B then we should keep a corresponding gap an apotome higher, at U+E336, U+E337.