Correct.To be clear: it would disallow as 5s because the 1/5C (Pythagorean comma, 81/80) has a better apotome slope than it (2.676 beats 7.880).

Agreed. But others have preferred 17k before Dave Ryan.And that 17/1 bit is related to Dave Ryan's preference covered here. It's the choice between the 17k w/ apotome slope 6.462 and the 17C w/ apotome slope 4.093. Sagittal uses the 17C to represent prime 17 in its Prime Factor notation, eschewing the 17k (which Dave Ryan prefers). Sagittal's (precision level) JI notation, on the other hand, allows either one. A prime-factor-combination notation would have the same limitation as the Prime Factor notation, though.

Agreed.But this is all not terribly relevant to the current work at hand. It seems we agree that we should not actually pursue release of such a "prime-factor-combination" or "meta-comma" notation. However, we can use it to help make the best decisions about the tina commas.

I don't know what you mean by "worked into the JI precision level notation" or "this precision level".In other words, such a notation can be worked into the JI precision level notation and become part of it at this precision level (and perhaps use this strategy when reassigning those couple of bad apple commas in the Extreme notation which we recently found w/ N2D3P9).

Different thread. Sorry. viewtopic.php?p=1636#p1636Let me know if you find [apportioning votes between commas for the same 2,3-free ratio]. I just reviewed the thread and couldn't find it.

Yes. But as you say, not relevant to this thread.Are you saying that had apotome slope / abs3exp not knocked some commas out of the running, it would have been even more skewed toward the most popular ratios getting all the symbols?

Not important.I still owe us some tina smileys for the forum, too, apparently!

As mentioned before: I think abs3exp is irrelevant for meta-commas.I thought I should resurface a thought we were working with earlier in the thread: that we should choose tina commas with 3-exponents close to +8 since when subtracted from the 5-schisma they would lead to a low 3-exponent. That was only for tinas 1 through 7, though, and it was because we were planning to set tinas 8 though 14 as the difference between the 5-schisma and the corresponding tina.

Yeah. 9 tinas max.... Or should I only look for ones within 9 tinas, which is the range we directly need commas for? Okay, yes, I see that you specifically said 9 tinas earlier. Got it.

No, as addressed in my previous post.It looks like we have not already 100% locked down a half-tina, so I should group possibilities by half-tina.

Commas not needed for n.5 tinas. It might still be a good idea to make n>7 tinas 5s-complements, but lets see what turns up when we allow independent n>7 tinas.And the reason I brought up this 5-schisma-difference bit was to confirm that we no longer need the 7.5-, 8-, 8.5-, and 9- tina symbols to be half-5-schisma-mirrors of the 6.5-, 6-, 5.5-, and 5- tina symbols. That actually it might be a feature for them to not be complements of each other, if that allows us to exactly notate more as-of-yet not exactly notated 2,3-free classes.