Dave Keenan wrote: ↑Sat Jun 20, 2020 8:03 pm
I should have been more forceful than "perhaps", and I should have said "and read his next 3 posts".
I had indeed re-read that thread to prepare for my previous post. In some sentences I wrote (which apparently didn't make the final cut) I even explicitly referenced it. Clearly there's something in there that you think I've still failed to appreciate, though, but I can't figure out what it is. Reproducing these quotes isn't making it any more obvious to me... sorry about that.
Honestly, I'm a loss of how to respond well here. Because you did not respond directly (inline) to a single sentence I wrote, I don't understand what your objections are to any of them. Or if you actually have any objections. It seems like you do have some objections. It almost feels like you didn't see them at all, or chose to completely ignore them, especially since you did
respond directly to volleo6144's words. I was building upon those, so I do have some sense where you stand on the stuff I said, but not many of my key points.
You're bringing ratios into the discussion, but I'm concerned that only clouds things, since the full ratios still have the 3's and 2's in them, so it's easy to tell which is bigger — the numerator, or the denominator — and thus whether the directed ratio represents a move upwards or downwards. We trade that ability away in the comma naming scheme for the ability to quickly identify the part of the prime content which is meaningful (those primes greater than 3).
So it's sufficient to remember the direction of the symbol for each (unreciprocated) prime, rather than the direction of the comma for each upward symbol. But I don't see any way to generalise that to symbols for two primes-above-3 on opposite sides of a ratio, like
I'm still very confused where you're going with this, but it seems like maybe you're focusing on Prime Factor notation when we need something that works for all the commas in Sagittal. Which you yourself acknowledge there.
And re: that first sentence I quoted of yours just above, specifically, I'll repeat something I wrote in my previous post that might have gotten buried:
cmloegcmluin wrote:Going the way I've suggested, all I'm asking the community to do is start calling the 5C the 1/5C. There's a bit of overhead in learning the new name, and the slight inconvenience that the new name is a tad longer, but a big win: I now know the orientation of its prime content. I don't have to memorize it; I'm reminded of it constantly.
So I don't know what you mean by "rather than [remembering] the direction of the comma for each upward symbol". I don't think you have to remember it. You get reminded of it every time you use the comma.
It does seem like in that first sentence you're hinting at having read something else that I wrote:
cmloegcmluin wrote:The purpose of encoding the direction into the name is to disambigutate the orientation of the comma's prime content with respect to whether you are moving up or down by it. By trying to have the name carry the weight of up vs down movement as well as the orientation of the prime content in the comma, you are proposing something that is almost as ambiguous as it was before — it is not quite as ambiguous, because if you happen to know which of 5(/1)C and 1/5C is associated with the upwards symbol, then you have the key to unlocking the orientation of the prime content in the comma. But why ask people to deal with that?
But under your false characterization of my side of the "rather", I don't understand what the advantage of your side would be over it...
these examples probably don't have any musical relevance. I can't see any relevance to Sagittal notation.
I agree with that. I retract my previous statement that "[volleo6144's counterexample] alone is enough, I think, to end the debate". The Secor-Keenan comma naming scheme is independent from Sagittal indeed. And after all, your name is on the naming scheme. @volleo6144
and I are guests here.
And this works just as well for 5/1C + 1/55C = 1/11M (
Agreed, but it's completely redundant with 1/5C + 55C = 11M. My point is that ever having to see the characters "5/1C", "1/55C", or "1/11M" is unnecessary, creates extra work for users, and potentially confuses them.
Sorry if this comes across as exasperated. It seems likely that you're resistant to the idea of "1/5C is the name of the comma in Sagittal;
is up and
is down, and you know the orientation of the prime content because the name corresponds to the upward symbol" but I don't understand what your objections are my attempt to illustrate the clear advantages of that over the old "5C is the name of the comma in Sagittal;
is up and
is down, but you're in suspense about the orientation of the prime content" or your proposed "the comma has two names: 1/5C and 5/1C, and make sure you remember that 1/5C is the upward one
and 5/1C is the downward one