Re: Compound time signature style

[David Kastrup]

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?

-- 
David Kastrup