RE: geometric complexity
- From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:45:41 -0400
You don't know how to do it otherwise? That's most unfortunate . . . i'm
still hoping for the triangular-taxicab metrics i've discussed to get some
airplay, as the numerics for codimension 1 at least will be beautiful . . .
Anyway, why aren't we closing in on finality for the project? What exactly
is Euclidean geometric complexity going to mean to a musician that our
previous measures don't capture well? And i think there might be too many
7-limit temperaments in our list -- i'd be happy to drop my insistence on
injera if we can eliminate a bunch.
-----Original Message-----
From: Gene W Smith [mailto:genewardsmith@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:38 PM
To: tuning-math@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: geometric complexity
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:17:09 -0400 "Paul H. Erlich"
<PErlich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> How am i to take this other that some kind of imperious declaration?
Why would you take it that way? Using Euclidean distances allows me to
define what I called "geometric complexity". I don't know how to do it
otherewise, and don't see a need to attempt it. What have you go against
Euclid, anyway? :)
____________________________________________________________
To learn how to configure this list via e-mail (subscribe,
unsubscribe, etc.), send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with the subject line "info tuning-math". Or visit the
website: < //www.freelists.org/list/tuning-math > .
____________________________________________________________
To learn how to configure this list via e-mail (subscribe,
unsubscribe, etc.), send a message to listar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with the subject line "info tuning-math". Or visit the
website: < //www.freelists.org/list/tuning-math > .
Other related posts:
