Canonical extension: Difference between revisions
From Xenharmonic Reference
m Inthar moved page User:Inthar/Naturalness and canonicality to Naturalness and canonicality without leaving a redirect |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Naturalness should be decidable via an algorithm, while a set of heuristics suffices for canonicality. | Naturalness should be decidable via an algorithm, while a set of heuristics suffices for canonicality. | ||
== The naturalness algorithm == | == The naturalness algorithm == | ||
== Canonicality heuristics == | |||
Revision as of 02:02, 4 February 2026
This page or section is a work in progress. It may lack sufficient justification, content, or organization, and is subject to future overhaul.
This is a technical or mathematical page. While the subject may be of some relevance to music, the page treats the subject in technical language.
(The page is marked as problematic because the definition of naturalness needs to be made more rigorous)
Let T be a regular temperament on JI group G and let H be a JI group containing G, but of one rank higher. A strong extension U on H is natural if the commas tempered out by T induce the presence of the added basis element of H. A strong extension U on H is (more weakly and less formally) canonical if it is the most efficient (accurate and low-complexity) strong extension of T to H.
Naturalness should be decidable via an algorithm, while a set of heuristics suffices for canonicality.
