RE: geometric complexity

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:  < http://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:  < http://www.freelists.org/list/tuning-math > .

Other related posts: