dswilkerson

Please provide a link.

If this essay can be distilled into a couple of lines, please do that.

Responses that say "If I started listing criticisms I would never finish" usually have none. Name 3.

Does Daniel Levitin, author of "This is your brain on music", count as someone with "a decent understanding of music and acoustics" ? He thinks that Helmholtz explained harmony (he told me personally). However, as the essay points out, (1) The American Acoustical Society collection has an experiment stretching frequencies from 2.0 to 2.1 that they conclude shows that Helmholtz was wrong, and (2) if Helmholtz was right, there would be not harmony at all, as the essay points out. So even someone like Levitin is wrong.

This is like saying we should not study physics because if we did then all art could be automatically generated.

> if it was right, then the happiest music would be entirely octaves

Not necessarily: if you read the essay, one assumption is that the brain is halving and doubling frequencies to fit them all into one frequency magnitude, an obvious optimization for reducing circuitry. If so, then an octave is too simple to fire the recognizer for a particular harmonic series; instead we need an input that places it relative to the other tones even after the halving/doubling.

Consider the fact that we name both middle C and high C as "C" because, even though they are different notes, they sound so similar that we literally deliberately confuse them notationally as they play the same role in harmony: one can be used to replace the other.

> Music is pleasurable when it mostly meets expectations but surprises you as well, IE it sits just outside of what we expect.

Ok, but where do the expectations come from? Your assertion that it is all culturally relative ("nurture") and none from the structure of the most efficient algorithm for recognizing the harmonic series ("nature") has no basis in fact; you just assert it without proof.

In contrast, there is strong evidence for the absolute nature of auditory processing. In the essay, there is a quotation from Daniel Levitin's book "This is your Brain on Music" where it discusses an experiment he witnessed in graduate school where music was played through wiring directly into the brain of an owl. The music was played into the brain with the root removed; when coming out of the brain of the owl, brain had restored the root (see the essay for details).

That means that virtual pitch (1) is created by the structure of the brain, not by a cultural expectation, and (2) further, that it is created by the brain of, not just a human, but of an owl! This is a very strong argument for the assertion that the processing of sound and the artifacts thereof are quite universal, not just across cultures, but across species.

> ratios and how chords derive from that was absolutely part of my education at Berklee

So at Berklee they teach recognizer algorithms and artifacts thereof? I did not know that Berklee is that strong in computer science. The explanation of the experience of the minor triad in "Harmony Explained" requires the concept of an inconsistency arising from a redundant recognizer algorithm.

In this case, one recognizer fires, that of the conjunction of three pairwise intervals of tones, whereas another recognizer does not fire, that if the triple of tones in order. This combination of firings is inconsistent because it is not possible for it to occur by playing any single normal harmonic series on, say, a flute. To generate it, one must play multiple notes and then use the effect of the recognizer of intervals pairing up tones from across the notes.

That is, this is a new kind of auditory perception that can be created as an artifact of the auditory recognizer algorithms of the brain, but cannot be heard otherwise. This is harmony.

If this this was taught to you at Berklee, please tell me which course that was and what the textbook is so I can look it up in the course syllabus and table of contents.

Happy Thanksgiving everybody!

I will just add a comment on an aspect of using emacs that no one else mentioned: (1) I find that I must bind caps-lock to control, and (2) as far as I can tell, no operating system does this in a way that really works besides OSX. So now I am stuck using OSX because I use emacs. When I use a GNU/Linux machine, I do it by ssh-ing in over the network from an OSX machine. I think you may find this to be something you have to deal with as well.

Math major here: this is wrong. The expression 1/0 is NOT A NUMBER, even if you allow positive infinity or negative infinity. In particular, it is most certainly not 0.

Note that infinity would be a fine answer IF MATHEMATICS COULD BE CONSISTENTLY EXTENDED to define it to be so, but this cannot be done (see below). Note that using infinity does not "break" mathematics (as some have suggested below) otherwise mathematicians would not use infinity at all.

If we have an expression that is not a number, such as 1/0, you can sometimes consistently define it to be something, such as a number or positive infinity or negative infinity, IF THAT WOULD BE CONSISTENT with the rest of mathematics. Let's see an example of the standard means of getting a consistent definition of exponentiation starting with its definition on positive integers and extending eventually to a definition for on a much bigger set, the rationals (ratios of signed integers).

We define 2 ^ N (exponentiation, "two raised to the power of N") for N a positive integer to be 2 multiplied by itself N times. For example: 2 ^ 1 = 2; 2 ^ 2 = 4; 2 ^ 3 = 8.

Ok, what is 2 ^ N where N is a negative integer? Well we did not define it, so it is nothing. However there is a way to CONSISTENTLY EXTEND the definition to include negative exponents: just define it to preserve the algebraic properties of exponentiation.

For exponents we have: (2 ^ A) * (2 ^ B) ("two raised to the power of A times two raised to the power of B") = 2 ^ (A+B) ("two raised to the power of A plus B"). That is, when you multiply, the exponents add. You can spot check it: (2 ^ 2) * (2 ^ 3) = 4 * 8 = 32 = 2 ^ 5 = 2 ^ (2 + 3).

So we can EXTEND THE DEFINITION of exponentiation to define 2 ^ -N for positive integer N (so a negative integer exponent) to be something that would BE CONSISTENT WITH the algebraic property above as follows. Define 2 ^ -N ("two raised to the power of negative N") to be (1/2) ^ N ("one half raised to the power N"). Check: (2 ^ -1) * (2 ^ 2) = ((1/2) ^ 1) * (2 ^ 2) = 1/2 * 4 = 2 = 2 ^ 1 = 2 ^ (-1 + 2).

Ok, what is 2 ^ 0 ("two raised to the power of zero")? Again, we have not defined it, so it is nothing. However, again, we can CONSISTENTLY EXTEND the definition of exponentiation to give it a value. 2 ^ 0 = (2 ^ -1) * (2 ^ 1) = 1/2 * 2 = 1. This always works out no matter how you look at it. So we say 2 ^ 0 = 1.

I struggled with this for days when I was a kid, literally yelling in disbelief at my parents until the would run away from me. I mean 2 ^ 0 means multiplying 2 times itself 0 times, which means doing nothing, so I thought it should be 0. After 3 days I finally realized that doing nothing IN THE CONTEXT OF MULTIPLICATION is multiplying by ONE, not multiplying by zero, so 2 ^ 0 should be 1.

Ok, is there a way to CONSISTENTLY EXTEND the definition of exponentiation to include non-integer exponents? Yes, we can define 2 ^ X for X = P / Q, where P and Q are integers (a "rational number"), to be 2 ^ (P/Q) = (2 ^ P) * (2 ^ -Q). All the properties of exponentials work out.

Notice how we can keep EXTENDING the definition of exponentiation starting from positive integers, to integers, to rationals, as long as we do so CONSISTENT with the properties of the previous definition of exponentials. I will not do go into the details, but we can CONSISTENTLY EXTEND the definition of exponentiation to real numbers by taking limits. For example, we can have a consistent definition of 2 ^ pi ("two raised to the power of pi") by taking the limit of 2 ^ (P/Q) as P/Q approaches pi.

HOWEVER, IN CONTRAST to the above extension of the definition of exponentiation, there is NO SUCH SIMILAR CONSISTENT EXTENSION to division that allows us to define 1/0 as ANY NUMBER AT ALL, even if we allow extending to include positive infinity and negative infinity.

The limit of 1/x as x goes to zero FROM THE POSITIVE DIRECTION = positive infinity. Some example points of this sequence: 1/1 = 1; 1/0.5 = 2; 1/0.1 = 10; 1/0.01 = 100, etc. As you can see the limit is going to positive infinity.

However, the limit of 1/x as x goes to zero FROM THE NEGATIVE DIRECTION = NEGATIVE infinity. Some example points from this sequence: 1/-1 = -1; 1/-0.5 = -2; 1/-0.1 = -10; 1/-0.01 = -100, etc. As you can see the limit is going to NEGATIVE infinity.

Therefore, since positive infinity does not equal negative infinity, there is NO DEFINITION of 1/0 that is consistent with BOTH of these limits at the same time. The expression 1/0 is NOT A NUMBER, even if you include positive and negative infinity, and mathematics cannot be consistently extended to make it into a number. Q.E.D.

"Show me your flowcharts [code], and conceal your tables [schema], and I shall continue to be mystified; show me your tables [schema] and I won't usually need your flowcharts [code]: they'll be obvious." -- Fred Brooks, "The Mythical Man Month", ch 9.

No. If you want a deeper understanding of programming, write your own static analysis / theorem prover.