>What's your definition of complexity in general? >Just about the same as yours, but . . . What specifically? >> Secondly, i don't see what there is about a Euclidean, as opposed to >> a >> triangular-taxicab, metric that is going to be reflective of how we >> hear. In >> fact, it would seem especially important at the 9-limit and above to >> deviate > from Euclid. >>I was proposing using a Euclidean metric which did not give the same size >>to all prime numbers; prime p would have length ln(p), and if p and q are >>odd primes, with q>p, then >>length p/q = length q/p = ln(q). This uniquely determines a Euclidean >>metric. >Right, but first of all, do we or don't we have octave equivalence? We do; this is a metric on octave classes. >Secondly, the metric (if you replace "prime" with "odd") is inconsistent for >intervals like 9/5, right? You can't form a Euclidean figure for the 9-limit >pentad such that all the intervals obey this "odd" rule, can you? It doesn't treat 9 quite like a prime, but I don't think it does badly. In this case we have L(7/5) = ln 7 = 1.946 L(9/5) = sqrt(2 ln(3)^2 + ln(5)^2) = 2.237 L(11/5) = ln(11) = 2.398 The value 2.237 instead of ln(9) = 2.197 doesn't seem that horrible to me. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Access Your PC from Anywhere - Free Trial http://us.click.yahoo.com/o5uw2C/0ncEAA/Ey.GAA/wHYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: tuning-math-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ____________________________________________________________ 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 > .