Re: Compound time signature style

[David Kastrup]

Hans Aberg <address@hidden> writes:

>> On 6 Nov 2014, at 20:49, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>> 
>> Hans Aberg <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>>>> On 6 Nov 2014, at 14:46, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:
>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 04.11.2014 um 07:48 schrieb David Kastrup:
>>>>>>> Dan Eble <address@hidden> writes:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> If the simple-fraction components of a compound time signature
>>>>>>>> respected the time signature style, would that qualify as
>>>>>>>> useful or as undesirable?  For example,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 2 + 3                2 + 3   4
>>>>>>>> ----- + C     vs.    ----- + -
>>>>>>>>   4                    4     4
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Undesirable in my book.
>>>>> 
>>>>> It seems everyone agrees for once. :)
>>>>> 
>>>>> One more case: \compoundMeter #’(n d).  The current implementation
>>>>> prints this as a fraction (n/d), but I plan to change it to honor the
>>>>> style unless somebody objects.
>>>> 
>>>> I lean towards not consulting the style here.  \compoundMeter to me
>>>> feels like it should just be numeric.
>>> 
>>> A compound meter can have the same iterated subaccent structure as
>>> otherwise indicated in the staff by beaming, only that it occurs
>>> metrically. In practise, though, one prefers exceptions. So one idea
>>> to implement it would be to have a sequence of patterns recognizing
>>> metric rhythms, each assigning a formal compound metric structures,
>>> the latter is what is used to typeset the beaming structure.
>>> 
>>> A brief description of this compound metric structure:
>>> 
>>> The smallest structure is "in one”: only an accent at the
>>> beginning. Write that as I2, I3, I4, ... (For example, Beethoven’s 5th
>>> symphony is normally played "in one", though written in 2.)
>>> 
>>> Then one can combine these using "+" and “(...)": a_1 + a_2 + … + a_k
>>> means that there is a stronger accent in the beginning of a_1 than on
>> 
>> Hans, I happen to be an engineer.  Disciplines like Theoretical
>> Electrical Engineering work somewhat like telling a mathematician what
>> you are currently working with, have him explode into generalized sets
>> of equations, work through the notation, reconvert into engineer math
>> and figure out how it may be applied to your actual problem.
>> 
>> This feels somewhat similar.  In this particular case, I fail to
>> reconnect the dots, however.  I just don't see how your math is supposed
>> to relate to figuring out whether to typeset C or 4/4 when writing
>> \compoundMeter #'(4 4).
>> 
>> Can you spell out what question your reply is supposed to be an answer
>> to?
>
> You wanted \compoundMeter to be numeric, so I gave a possible
> algorithmic structure, reiterating discussions of the past on LilyPond
> lists. Once one has that, the time signature derives from that, the
> question you are asking about.

I guess I am just too far below the intelligence of your target audience
to understand even a single sentence of what you are saying.

It seems like we need an interpreter between mathematician and engineer.
Is there a physicist around?

-- 
David Kastrup