Re: Solution to 7 over sqr(71) time against integer polyrhythms

[David Kastrup]

mclaren <address@hidden> writes:

> David Kastrup went on to aver: "LilyPond needs to know whether two events
> line up in time (only then are they aligned or have a common stem, and only
> the first such event gets an accidental and so on).  Once arithmetic does no
> longer guarantee 
>
>     1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1 
>
> it becomes impossible to reliably synchronize matters."
>
> This is just not correct. It's not even close to being correct. In
> fact, it's so far off from the reality that it's baffling that David
> Kastrup would make this claim.

Hey, we are making progress.  You are _baffled_ by someone being so much
more stupid than yourself.  Previously you'd have taken it for granted.
It doesn't make you reread what has baffled you, though.

> Lilypond only needs to know whether two events line up in time for MIDI
> output to the nearest (time signature / 960 parts per quarternote).

LilyPond is primarily a music typesetter, not a Midi generator (what do
you think "only then are they aligned or have a common stem, and only
the first such event gets an accidental and so on" even means in the
context of Midi?).

And even if it were solely a Midi generator, the only reliable guarantee
for two events to line up after Midi quantization is to line up already
before Midi quantization.

[...]

> This means that Lilypond only needs to know or care whether events
> line up to within about 1 millisecond in time for MIDI purposes.

Feel free to generate a version of LilyPond that only processes Midi and
change its arithmetic as you like it.  It will be very interesting to
see how you manage fitting stuff into Midi quantization when calculating
in Midi ticks: For example, pentoles do not fit _any_ Midi quantization,
so if you add 5 pentoles of equal Midi-quantized length that _should_
add up to a proper number of Midi ticks, you'll end up off by one or two
Midi ticks (the quantization error per pentole will be a multiple of 1/5
or 2/5 Midi ticks).

So even in Midi ticks you'll not get things to add up.

> Calculating Lilypond sychronization to any finer value for the
> pursposes of MIDI is utterly pointless.
>
> For engraved output, a reasonable visual maximum resolution would be
> tabloid output = 11 x 17 inches with 1200 dpi.

Look, you have forgotten to reread what you were baffled about.  Visual
resolution is not the problem LilyPond solves but rather that of having
things add up and consequently being able to determine the proper
sequence of things and simultaneousness.

[Lots of rants completely missing the point removed]

> So it's perfectly clear from the 150-year-plus history of
> psychoacoustics and cognitive psychology that what David Kastrup is
> claiming cannot possibly be true. In reality, there's lots of slop and
> error and the human ear/brain system's perception of musical timing,
> just as there is lots of slop and error in the human eye-brain
> system's perception of color, and so on.

This is irrelevant to the problems LilyPond's timing machinery is
solving.

It's particularly funny to hear you rant about the physical limitations
of performers while at the same time ranting about LilyPond's inability
to deal with fractions which have denominators of billions when in
shortest terms.

Either you want LilyPond to deal with music at such precision reliably
or not.  It's a valid though somewhat rare request, but when you then
rant that LilyPond does not to the job sloppily when its capacities are
not currently up to doing it with the precision you want to convey to
the musicians is just silly.

> None of this matters as long as we get close enough for perceptual
> purposes.

So why do you write stuff like that then?

> Kastrup then asserts: 
> "If you want something done, do it.  You are of the opinion that you can do
> better than those who worked so far on LilyPond, do it.  Don't beat your
> chest, do it."
>
> Now we've got a contradiction.  This entire forum exists presumably
> because the attitude of the Lilypond designers was NOT that anyone who
> had a problem with Lilypond crashing or hanging should just go off
> somewhere and hack the millions of lines of source code.

It is for people making the best use of LilyPond by sharing experience
and code pieces (an advantage over purely graphical programs) among a
community of interested users which tend to include some developers.

It is not there for shouting at people and throwing tantrums until
somebody gives you what you wanted to have.

LilyPond is a project that, for better or worse, is done by people
volunteering their time (and partly even money) for a project they
enjoy.  The way to get anything done is to do it yourself or make it
enjoyable enough for others to do it that they will help.

Your communication style is completely unsuitable for that purpose.
Your best investment in terms of getting the job done would likely be to
hire somebody for doing your communication.

Because frankly: hiring a programmer for doing the necessary work as
well as tolerating you as an employer until you sign off on the result
is going to be really expensive if the programmer bills you enough to
consider it a reasonably good deal.

It will be more effective to pay a good communicator: people actually
like to help given the chance.

> IF YOU ENCOUNTER ANY PROBLEM OR CRASH OR PROGRAM HANG WITH LILYPOND,
> FIX IT YOURSELF. DON'T BEAT YOUR CHEST COMPLAINING, JUST DO IT
> YOURSELF.
>
> Somehow I don't see that message being sent.

But your behavior does not work for anything else.  So it is being sent
to _you_.

> The fact that this forum exists seems a clear refutation of David
> Kastrup's assertion that if anyone encounters a problem with Lilypond,
> they should just rewrite the code themselves and shut up about it.

The fact that David Kastrup exists is already a clear refutation.  But
we are not talking about "anyone encoutering a problem with LilyPond",
we are talking about you.

And as long as _you_ are not going to change your mode of communication
to one acceptable under peers, there will not be many other options for
you.  LilyPond is free software, so you'll always retain the option of
taking matters into your own hands (which includes paying someone else
for doing the work for you and possibly keeping it to yourself).

-- 
David Kastrup