Jump to content
Maestronet Forums

Geometría fabrorum


Joaquín Fonollosa
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 684
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm glad the conversation has opened up so much.   We've seen many details from lots of viewpoints.

Let's remember though, conversations of 'what you can do', or of 'what they could have done', are very different from conversations about 'what did they do'.    And, conversations about what some people have done in the past in various other contexts are different from discussing what the N. Italian and Cremona violin makers actually did.

In a similar manner, discussions of ratios are troublesome. Even if there weren't the additional complications about accuracy, a geometric figure made with any ratios present, will have many additional induced relationships also present.   

For example, both the circle and the equilateral triangle can be founded on nothing more than the concept of equal distance.    A triangle with three equal sides gives you an equilateral triangle.   A collection of points equally distant from a center gives you a circle.    The idea present to create these need be nothing more than equality.   But once an equilateral triangle is present, depending on how you make use of it, you can demonstrate the presence of Phi.    And once circles are present, many many complicated incidental relationships can be claimed.  Yet again, the only idea needed to generate circles is the simple idea of equal distance from a center point. 

 

So beware when examining ratios in particular.     

Further, when we look at single examples, it's more difficult to separate determining ideas from incidental and consequential ones.

 

Now, most of this applies only if we seek an historical understanding.   If you just want to invent a new system, no problem.  As long as you like the results, you're set.   Who's to say otherwise.  But when you try to sort out what did happen historically, then there is some truth about the matter independent of us.    What we propose can be right, or not.

 

If you want to claim something helps us understand historical work, then we need to guard ourselves and keep checking our proposals against actual evidence.

 

Let'a look at the notion that the Strad Guitar's sound hole might be placed vertically by the relationship of a square's diagonal to its sides.

As presented in this drawing the idea looks plausible enough:

1981178116_fig5Capturedcran2019-10-0409_53_12.png.d4aacfd29bc92c3b6bb5693bfb268e9f.png

From this drawing, the matter appears confirmed and settled.  But such drawings are an unsafe way to present this sort of proposal.   The drawing might differ from the evidence.  With this sort of presentation, we are given no footing at all from which to judge the truthfulness of the idea. 

But what if we actually check the idea against the evidence of the instrument?

733769281_StradGuitar.thumb.jpg.6766161a6f93012e8fb2996dfb82345b.jpg

 

 Ok.  The idea remains plausible when check against the actual evidence.   Moreover, now we can see which circle from the soundhole this idea relates to .  

 

Now what of the 5 to 7 ratio that was also proposed?  Let's see that in context with the example instrument:

1305020532_StradGuitarratio.thumb.jpg.84e8cd19d4983048936a2e4b1ebd440f.jpg

 

This also appears plausible.  And maybe it seems slightly more accurate with the actual example, but the difference is only slight, and our margins of error are comparatively high, so we shouldn't be over confident in drawing conclusions.

How different are the rational 5/7 prediction and the method using a square?   Not very.   5/7 =  .714285714....   While the square method equates to 1/(2)^(1/2) or .7071067...    So the difference between these two ideas is on the order of 1 part in 100.

We can not fairly determine how significant these ratios might be from a single instrument, nor which one might be a more correct choice.  We would need to look across many such example guitars  to perhaps get a clearer idea how important or perhaps just incidental these particular ratios might turn out to be. 

Consider a further complication.  How do we decide which ring of the rosette work to focus on?  If we make a different choice, then all of a sudden, the size of the soundholes appears as 1/2 the cBout width.    Only finding consistent pattern across many examples can sort out this kind of confusion.

196406794_StradGuitarsoundhole.thumb.jpg.e9772e8561cd913841a0df590dfd138c.jpg

 

 

We have to be careful with our ratio work.   

If an instrument was actually structured by a workman who truly used a certain ratios as he went to relate parts one to another, then those few ratios actually worked in will induce many other related but derived relationships.

On some level, our ability to sort out the actually used ratios from the incidentally induced ones will always be limited.   But, by looking across many example instruments, we can make some attempt to find our footing in these issues.   The actually used ratios will tend to be more consistently and robustly present.  

And, we should keep our work well grounded by visually relating our hypothesized ratio relationships against the real examples as directly and as frequently as possible.  

While there are literally endless elaborate frameworks that can be created around a design drawing to illustrate or impose the ratios we're focusing on, perhaps we should prefer illustrating and thinking of these ratios in the simplest ways possible.

If you are a workman with instrument and dividers in hand, what would be the simplest way to work the particular relationship in that moment?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the thing I find puzzling in the entire thing is that, if "they" were using some elaborate mathematical formula involving ratios and Pythagorean/ Fibonacci relationships revolving around some sacred/religious/divine motivator or just for the math of it all, why was nothing written down?

You'd think that something so complex as it relates to instruments specifically would be written down in some form, I have a hard time believing it was "secret design" knowledge that was held in a Illuminati like guild of those with the secret knowledge and only passed on by word of mouth with the secret handshake.

and if it was literally only passed on by word of mouth how did "how it was done" die so quickly and then become lost to time to the point where we are trying to figure out 'what they did"...precisely 

again I think what you and Dennis have done is great, and I find the most fascinating thing about it , next to "it' is how "just how it was done" seemed to vanish off the face of the planet to the point where we have to ponder these things as we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not really a forum person, but this thread is so fascinating, thanks to all contributors for sharing. I work with double basses and have been studying their form not so much from a historical perspective (though you can’t get away from that) but more out of curiosity and finding out how this knowledge can be used practically in building new instruments. It’s still very much a work in progress.

At the moment I’m busy drawing a commission instrument (a bass with removable neck for easier travel) which is based on some given measurements from an existing instrument. I thought let me try the procedure that I’m using for the bass to analyse this guitar.

This is my analysis based on the given measurements, no claims, it’s obviously incomplete, and there are things I don’t properly understand. But there are many surprising things. For example, the exact same relationship between upper and lower bouts on this guitar as on the bass I’m working on (660mm lower bout, 520mm upper bout). How strange is that when you think how much variance there is in double basses?

Unfortunately, I don’t have a computer program and all my drawing stuff is at work, so this is worked out mathematically from the measurements given. But I hope that it is never-the-less relatively straightforward to follow my thinking and it will then speak for itself. I'll be grateful for comments and pointers and once again thank you to all who've shared their knowledge already.

WKDKXQz60M_s7VieFVS3nGcOJVDlumUmoXf72e9pyaiKXFQ7rDZ8VbnKiqlgrNAY9SuETqw-Iu1Ohn3FNsFdiPE8x4WAxps6Gjr2DfHN9xaJq9QN1Y_khQlSiyHGzrNWYsZ2bupc

 

1.       Draw vertical centre line

2.       Fill bottom square with a circle

3.       Draw horizontal centre line in this bottom square

4.       Draw Vesica Pisces.

5.       Repeat steps 2-4 for the top square

6.       On the vertical centre line mark:
centre point of bottom square
top intersection point of VP in bottom square
the centre of the sound hole
centre point of top square
top intersection point of VP in top square
 

Observations:

1.       In the bottom square, the distance from P to top of the VP intersection is 194 which is close to qq´ 194,7. (Compare this to 402,1/23 x 11 = 192,3 or 246/7 x 5 = 175,7).

2.       The distance of the centre point of bottom square to the top of VP intersection is 71 which is close to aa’ 70,7. (Compare this to 402,1/23 x 4 = 69,9).

3.       The distance from P to the top of the VP intersection in the upper square is 399,7 using the given qq’. My theoretical value is 399.  Notice that the golden ratio to pp’ is 398. Compare these measurements to PQ which is 402,1. Now follow the curves from the top of VP intersection to where they intersect the neck/fingerboard. What is the distance to pp’? I don’t know but it will be a little higher and closer to PQ.

4.       PQ’ is 440,1 according to measurements and pp’+ qq’ = 440,7. My theoretical value is 440.

5.       For placement of the centre of the sound hole look at the distance from VP intersection in bottom square to the centre line of top square. The centre point of the sound hole lies close to the midpoint of this line. If we say theoretically it lies at this point 268.5 from P then notice that it is close to 2/3 x PQ = 268. However, the actual measurement of sound hole centre should be 269,7 from P.

6.       Notice also the similarity of distances VP intersection in upper square to Q’ and VP intersection of lower square to bottom of sound hole.

7.       Notice also that length NQ’ 205,9 is similar to the distance between line pp’ and the line which lies across the top of the two circles in the bottom square which is 205.

signed Elinore Morris, 6 October 2019

Edited by Elinore Morris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, jezzupe said:

I guess the thing I find puzzling in the entire thing is that, if "they" were using some elaborate mathematical formula involving ratios and Pythagorean/ Fibonacci relationships revolving around some sacred/religious/divine motivator or just for the math of it all, why was nothing written down?

You'd think that something so complex as it relates to instruments specifically would be written down in some form, I have a hard time believing it was "secret design" knowledge that was held in a Illuminati like guild of those with the secret knowledge and only passed on by word of mouth with the secret handshake.

and if it was literally only passed on by word of mouth how did "how it was done" die so quickly and then become lost to time to the point where we are trying to figure out 'what they did"...precisely 

again I think what you and Dennis have done is great, and I find the most fascinating thing about it , next to "it' is how "just how it was done" seemed to vanish off the face of the planet to the point where we have to ponder these things as we do.

Your question has no answer. The instructions just don't exist. So Denis reconstructs the design by using the likely classical geometric method. 

Time to move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, David Beard said:

How do we decide which ring of the rosette work to focus on

 What is the diameter of Saturn for you ?  Do you consider that the moon is part of the earth?

You chose the first ring and another one  will prefer the second one because the match is better with his theory etc...

If you introduce this kind of variations as parameters,  you can demonstrate whatever you want and force the reality to your hypothesis

 

The answer is:  the "hole "-  what establishes the relation between the full and the empty , the inside and the outside etc..

the same than in architecture

I know that some irrational relations could have been used hurt you 

because that doesn't fit with what you imagine to have been "the cremonese tradition"

But the used of these irrational and the role played by their approximation has been widely demonstrated by  scholars.

 

950046100_Capturedecran2019-10-06a14_24_46.png.2aecd6ee1fc81a23dbdf867d967544a5.png

 

some biblio 

GROS (Pierre), Nombres irrationnels et nombres parfaits chez Vitruve, in « Mélange de l’École Française de Rome, Antiquité », 88, 1976, p. 669-704

FREY (Louis), « Données architecturales et hypothèse sur la mathématique pré-euclidienne », in Bulletin Antike Beschaving (BABesch), 1989, pp 90-99

TOBIN, R, « The canon of Polykletos », in American Journal of Archaelogy , 79, 1975, p. 307 sq.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, francoisdenis said:

I'm afraid that you are may be not joking ....
Are you a troll here?
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Did Amati leave behind a book , "the way I design my musical instruments?" Where is Strads "notes on my designs?" 

I see no violin makers,from Cremona, who left behind any specific design information, and certainly no compiled book written as a how to manual that show how they did it or why.

Or am I wrong about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael_Molnar said:

Your question has no answer. The instructions just don't exist. So Denis reconstructs the design by using the likely classical geometric method. 

Time to move on.

I think there is an answer I just don;t think anyone has taken the time to discover it, to reverse engineer history in order to discover "the missing link", because in this case it seems like the link is missing because no one from Cremona involved in luthier work wrote anything down.

But more importantly how/why/when did fathers and sons, Masters and apprentices stop passing on information by word of mouth.to the point where if it were a tradition to be kept alive {the design and creation of instruments} that it somehow was allowed to die.

Was it a case of "we never write anything down because we just pass it on verbally, and well we'll always be doing this in this way so no need to bother"?, and then eventually it did fade away somehow {which I find strange}to which at that point the knowledge was just lost? 

Again mostly just speaking of the actual original design, was it like Dennis suggests, or was it just some guys sketching stuff using ratios

Lets take a look at the establishment of 440A, a massively profound world changing event that altered the pitch and tonality of virtually all music played across the globe, and yet there really seems to be very little information on the entire event,who was behind it, what was the motivation, just how was it that the entire globe was somehow able to cooperate on that one thing like we we're trying to stop an asteroid, working together to "bam" snap the fingers and suddenly we all agree we must use 440 A  ? sorry I find that strange.

Yes there is some information about this out there,but it's rather vague and frankly reminds me of reading "official" text about the formation of the federal reserve bank.

And the change wasn't even that long ago.

There is tons of information out there about geometry and it's use out there.

I think Dennis is probably on the right track as this {ancient} "geometry" was seemingly way more important to the average craftsman/person back then.

The Pythagorean way of the world and it's importance and use back then was much more prevalent and if we take objects that were design "back then" I think we see it influencing everything as Dennis suggest.

Again, the strangeness to me is the seeming silent yet intentional removal of it from our modern world at which point I lump the loss of "just how the violin was design" in with what I consider the larger mystery is how Pythagorean "everything" fell out of favor and then seemed to be "disappear'd" 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jezzupe said:

Again, the strangeness to me is the seeming silent yet intentional removal of it from our modern world at which point I lump the loss of "just how the violin was design" in with what I consider the larger mystery is how Pythagorean "everything" fell out of favor and then seemed to be "disappear'd" 

 

You will understand I think that everything that is done in this world since the beginning of mankind is dependent on access to three types of resources that are: materials, storage of information, and calculus possibilities. To understand something about how the world evolves, you have to consider only these three factors.
If none of them change the society remains static (and the forms too), but if only one of the accesses to one of these three resources moves then the human society is unbalanced and will start moving towards the search for a new balanced.
Any social, technical, scientific, technological or political evolution depends on the level of access to these three types of resources.
The answer to your question is here.
Something happened after the Renaissance,
Something happened at the turn of the XXI° century ,

did you notice?

Regarding Strad's or Amati's non-existent notebooks it is typically the sort of argument used by those whom this idea suits because it simply reinforces that it is not useful to spend time reading and question themself. Have you once in your life, tried for weeks to understand a single paragraph of an old treaty?
What have you read and understood from Hans Schmuttermayer, Mathias Rorictzer or Arnault de Zwolle?
Yet here are people who have left notesbook which you imagine that it would give you a ready made solution ... You did not read them and it is certain that if you did it you would understand nothing of it.
It is a pure illusion to believe that writing it conveys a truth simply accessible by a reader centuries after it was written. Zwolle is a perfect illustration of this, in another area Vitruvius ceases to be intelligible at the beginning of the 17th century when the long tradition of commentators of the text begins.
I published a comprehensive and in-depth analysis of Zwolle's text
did you read it, did you understand it? I'm sure not.


To convince yourself of this, it is enough for you to imagine the number of terms you use without requiring it to be explained. These implicit meanings nurture understanding and if they are not passed on any recipe becomes difficult to understand
 The "Librem segreti de buttegha" is an illustration that understanding of a writting can be very confuse

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Denis I certainly appreciate your taking the time to converse with me about the subject.

When you say 

"The answer to your question is here.
Something happened after the Renaissance,
Something happened at the turn of the XXI° century ,

did you notice?"

this I suppose needs more specific discussion, as many things happened. I am interested in what you think as it pertains to this discussion were the important "happenings" 

and then when you say 

"Regarding Strad's or Amati's non-existent notebooks it is typically the sort of argument used by those whom this idea suits because it simply reinforces that it is not useful to spend time reading and question themself. "

I would not really frame what I said as an argument as much as a simple statement of fact based on my perhaps somewhat limited knowledge of the subject. But to the best of my knowledge there are no detailed notebooks or writings from say Amati or Strad.

and at that point I suppose two different opinions of that can be formed , mine which is 'hmm, that odd" and then yours which is "well that's because they would know this advanced geometry and how to apply it and wouldn't need to bother writing anything down'

I think what you're implying is that people back then were much more well rounded, well read, and would know these things or have learned them, and therefore would have automatically incorporated them into what they were doing , designing instruments? Having knowledge of Hans Schmuttermayer, Mathias Rorictzer or Arnault de Zwolle? either that or I'm unread idiot, hmm,not really sure which one.

But at any rate, I'll look into your writings on Zwolle, surely you must understand that your level of knowledge about such subjects is far advanced when compared to the average person or even violin maker and that if your intent is to come here and lay down bread crumbs so we may do our own readings , particularly your books and become knowledgeable , well that's fine, you certainly do have a flair for cryptic easter eggs.

and finally I would say when you wrote

"Have you once in your life, tried for weeks to understand a single paragraph of an old treaty?"

I have spent a great deal of time reading the articles of incorporation of the united states of america, the federal reserve/irs bank act , as well as the bank act of 1694 related to the formation of the bank of England, which indirectly relates to the subject at hand I suppose if one reached hard enough.

The truth is out there :D

at 53 second mark :rolleyes:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, jezzupe said:

I guess the thing I find puzzling in the entire thing is that, if "they" were using some elaborate mathematical formula involving ratios and Pythagorean/ Fibonacci relationships revolving around some sacred/religious/divine motivator or just for the math of it all, why was nothing written down?

You'd think that something so complex as it relates to instruments specifically would be written down in some form, I have a hard time believing it was "secret design" knowledge that was held in a Illuminati like guild of those with the secret knowledge and only passed on by word of mouth with the secret handshake.

and if it was literally only passed on by word of mouth how did "how it was done" die so quickly and then become lost to time to the point where we are trying to figure out 'what they did"...precisely 

again I think what you and Dennis have done is great, and I find the most fascinating thing about it , next to "it' is how "just how it was done" seemed to vanish off the face of the planet to the point where we have to ponder these things as we do.

First, these things look complex to us, at least until we grow familiar.

 

What exactly is complex about setting width to length by walking dividers in a 4 to 7 ratio?  Nothing.  In fact, for a workman comfortable with using dividers, I doubt you could propose a more bone simple approach.

Further, many of the important ratio ranges boil down to some simple rule of thumb.  For example, we see all the Cremona examples based on 5:9, 4:7, 3:5, or 2:3 for body length to width.   You could call these the 'traditional ratios' because not using them would definitely be unusual.   But are those hard to remember or complicated?   They have a 'rule of thumb' behind them.   Each is 'a part less than double'.   Double a width of 4 would be 8, but a part less give 7. etc.

If your grandfather, father, and your brother used just these, every time, every day, how difficult would it be for you to learn to work this same way?

There are a lot of separate features.  And each has similar 'traditional rules'.  Meaning nothing more than things we can observe them ALWAYS doing.    None of these things is really complicated.   They all reduce to simple common uses of dividers and ratios.

 

It is very different than we are used to approaching work today.   But so what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, francoisdenis said:

 What is the diameter of Saturn for you ?  Do you consider that the moon is part of the earth?

You chose the first ring and another one  will prefer the second one because the match is better with his theory etc...

If you introduce this kind of variations as parameters,  you can demonstrate whatever you want and force the reality to your hypothesis

 

The answer is:  the "hole "-  what establishes the relation between the full and the empty , the inside and the outside etc..

the same than in architecture

I know that some irrational relations could have been used hurt you 

because that doesn't fit with what you imagine to have been "the cremonese tradition"

But the used of these irrational and the role played by their approximation has been widely demonstrated by  scholars.

 

950046100_Capturedecran2019-10-06a14_24_46.png.2aecd6ee1fc81a23dbdf867d967544a5.png

 

some biblio 

GROS (Pierre), Nombres irrationnels et nombres parfaits chez Vitruve, in « Mélange de l’École Française de Rome, Antiquité », 88, 1976, p. 669-704

FREY (Louis), « Données architecturales et hypothèse sur la mathématique pré-euclidienne », in Bulletin Antike Beschaving (BABesch), 1989, pp 90-99

TOBIN, R, « The canon of Polykletos », in American Journal of Archaelogy , 79, 1975, p. 307 sq.

 

 

This does come up frequently.

But when the choice is ambiguous, it is not up to us to decide for the makers which choice they should have used.

We are forced for a while to admit we don't know.   As long as our not knowing persists, we must entertain the possibility than any one of the candidates might have been what matter to the makers.

To preemptively focus on only one of the possibilities is a false road. 

******

This is part of why I say we must be very cautious concerning ratios.

We must particularly be cautious about extrapolating conclusions from one or few instruments to many.  It is much safer to work the other way, saying that the observation of a consistent pattern across many many examples helps lends confidence in view a new single example as consistent with the patterns seen in a larger population of examined instruments.

 

But in all cases, we should be reserved in our confidence regard ratio relationships.   If when the observed relationship appears in perfect accuracy, there remains the further questions of cause and consequence.   

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, David Beard said:

First, these things look complex to us, at least until we grow familiar.

 

What exactly is complex about setting width to length by walking dividers in a 4 to 7 ratio?  Nothing.  In fact, for a workman comfortable with using dividers, I doubt you could propose a more bone simple approach.

Further, many of the important ratio ranges boil down to some simple rule of thumb.  For example, we see all the Cremona examples based on 5:9, 4:7, 3:5, or 2:3 for body length to width.   You could call these the 'traditional ratios' because not using them would definitely be unusual.   But are those hard to remember or complicated?   They have a 'rule of thumb' behind them.   Each is 'a part less than double'.   Double a width of 4 would be 8, but a part less give 7. etc.

If your grandfather, father, and your brother used just these, every time, every day, how difficult would it be for you to learn to work this same way?

There are a lot of separate features.  And each has similar 'traditional rules'.  Meaning nothing more than things we can observe them ALWAYS doing.    None of these things is really complicated.   They all reduce to simple common uses of dividers and ratios.

 

It is very different than we are used to approaching work today.   But so what?

Perhaps complex is not the right word as much as formulaic ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, jezzupe said:

I guess the thing I find puzzling in the entire thing is that, if "they" were using some elaborate mathematical formula involving ratios and Pythagorean/ Fibonacci relationships revolving around some sacred/religious/divine motivator or just for the math of it all, why was nothing written down?

You'd think that something so complex as it relates to instruments specifically would be written down in some form, I have a hard time believing it was "secret design" knowledge that was held in a Illuminati like guild of those with the secret knowledge and only passed on by word of mouth with the secret handshake

Hi Jezzupe:

One these points, please note that the things I'm reporting observed are not fancy or mystically motivated at all.  Nor do they show any real connection to fancier large ideas like musical harmony, Fibonanci, nor Pythogorean philosophy.    What my observations report is just a very flat footed and practical workshop method, requiring nothing more than simple divider use.

 

And we can observe some difficulties in these methods 'jumping' communities'.   When we see Brescians begin to imitate the new successful Amati volute style, we see them struggle with it.

Be all evidence, these are practices that did pass individual to individual, and most easily within a cohesive community.

Not 'illuminati', just fathers, sons, and apprentices.

Keep it simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, jezzupe said:

Perhaps complex is not the right word as much as formulaic ? 

Formulaic in a sense.  But each 'feature recipe' presents options, and is significantly steerable by the maker.    So it is more a structure behind the work that keeps things on a good track, but lets you drive where you choose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, francoisdenis said:

What is the diameter of Saturn for you ?

It depends on the strata you reference.  For me, I can live with that truthful complexity better than I can live with falsely simplifying by declaring one particular strata the one and only diameter.

Same with Earth.  I can accept that for most daily purposes the ground level is likely taken as the assumed strata for calculating an Earth diameter.  But I still grant that for some special purposes a different strata might be preferred.   And again, I would rather accept the burden of sometimes needing to include specifiers like 'average ground level diameter' of Earth.  For me, carrying these distinctions around is a better solution than resorting to some authority structure declaring that one strata is the always forever default unless otherwise specified.

That is my preference.  And the more uncertain the ground, the more I prefer to carry the complexities around with me in an open and transparent way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, francoisdenis said:

I know that some irrational relations could have been used hurt you 

Dear Francois,

Once again, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I went in to this research assuming I would find Phi.

 

What has emerged, is that I've found no cases the require resorting to irrationals, but many that can only be reasonably explained with rationals.

 Since rationals are required, but an understand in irrationals appears to be only 'optional'.   Then it seems simpler and more consistent to now prefer the rational options.

 

To now prefer the rational.     Not initially.   

Can irrationals give a could understanding of all the relationships seen?  No.

Can rationals give a could understanding of all the relationships seen?  Yes

Is it possible they used irrationals in some cases?  Yes

Is it possible they instead used rational substitutes in those cases?  Yes

Is it possible they never resorted to irrationals?  Yes

Is it provable the used irrationals? No.  Or that they didn't?  No

 

If you are attached to showing their use, can you? Yes    But are there always alternatives? Yes

 

Can we prove irrationals were used? No

Can we prove rationals were used? Yes

***********

Once again, I went in to the research not only happy to find irrationals and fancy ideas of ratios used, but I DID NOT FIND SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE IDEA.    After a time, I allowed that it is more likely irrationals weren't used.

 

Since so many moderns have a virulent bias to find irrational and other 'special' or sacred ratios,  AND SINCE THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT ONLY VERY MUNDANE PRACTICAL INTEGERS ARE NEEDED, I have progressed from assuming I would find 'special ratios', to admitting that I didn't find any cases were mundane simple ratios didn't provide as good or better an understanding.

Because of the rabid modern bias toward finding these things everywhere, I now mostly start out just fighting these biases.    But I remain open, at least in theory.

 

PLEASE UPDATE YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ME.

David

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jezzupe said:

I think there is an answer I just don;t think anyone has taken the time to discover it, to reverse engineer history in order to discover "the missing link"

I have taken the time.  That has been the last ten years of my life.  I've pursued this as diligently and honestly as my talents allow.

 

I'm now talking to the world about what I found.    It does agree partially with Francois, and also with Kelly, but then the results go elsewhere.   

 

***********

 

And, these extensive observation end up accumulating to paint an unanticipated picture of a mechanism and actual result of design development by cultural evolution.

The back bone of this evolution is that each feature present these very limited recipes of geometry and ratios that had become traditional to the feature.   Work was executed by making 'choices' withing the recipe.   The full collection of such choices in building an instrument amounted to an 'encoding' of the design.  Repeat the choices, repeat the design.    This was essential the 'DNA' of the cultural evolution of the classical violin.     The most preferred patterns of choice slowly developed, and even more slowly, the options presented for a feature could extend or develop some.

*******

 

Social, technical, and economic change from the approaching industrial revolution are what break the continuity and power of these traditions.

By 1790s you still see makers working within methods that reflect the main elements of these traditions, like the Mantegazza brothers.     But you can also argue that constructive development within these methods probably ended with Del Gesu, and perhaps Montagnana if you include the  Venetians who worked in closely related methods (some Venetians not all).

 

*******

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jezzupe said:

Well Denis I certainly appreciate your taking the time to converse with me about the subject.

When you say 

"The answer to your question is here.
Something happened after the Renaissance,
Something happened at the turn of the XXI° century ,

did you notice?"

this I suppose needs more specific discussion, as many things happened. I am interested in what you think as it pertains to this discussion were the important "happenings" 

and then when you say

This is all part of what is commonly swept up in the phrase 'Industrial Revolution'.   But it is a much larger thing than that.    Look at a physical book made in 1740 and compare that to a physical book made in 1840.   There is a vast difference.   This is what happened to violin making and the world.

Napoleon was part of it.   Bach to Beethoven is part of it.    Small regional and family arts turned in to more efficient 'cottage industry' and factory work, that is part of it.

 

Voltaire is part of it.   The American and French revolutions.  It is all part of one.    

Your A440 was part of this.   The change from each town's church organ being the 'A', and all of them a bit different, toward settling on an agreed international standard; that change is part of Napoleon's initiatives to bust guilds and making industry and arts knowledge public commerce instead of 'secret'.   Standard units in general were a piece of that.

 

Remember the stories of Strad and his sons?  Yes.  There was some element of protective secrecy in Cremona violin making.  Even though they all were working and all knew the same community toolkit of 'recipes' or geometry and ratio.

The real progress of their art was not in remaking that toolkit, though very slowly it did evolve; no, the real battle front in their work was in the combinations of choices they made in using the toolkit's option.    Which combinations of choices did they prefer.   The evolution of their designs was the evolution of these preferences of choices within the traditional toolkit of recipes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jezzupe said:

I have spent a great deal of time reading the articles of incorporation of the united states of america, the federal reserve/irs bank act , as well as the bank act of 1694 related to the formation of the bank of England, which indirectly relates to the subject at hand I suppose if one reached hard enough.

The truth is out there :D

at 53 second mark :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Yikes!!!

Is this what happens when you stop saying 'rationals are enough' and you start seeing special irrationals and Pythagorean truths all over the place?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jezzupe said:

I have spent a great deal of time reading the articles of incorporation of the united states of america, the federal reserve/irs bank act , as well as the bank act of 1694 related to the formation of the bank of England

Wonderful, so we do not have the same readings! What is certain is that I do not allow to have the beginning of an opinion about the bank act of 1694 related to the formation of the bank of England (and unfortunately I have no vids suitable to share with you on this topic)

 

1 hour ago, David Beard said:

This is all part of what is commonly swept up in the phrase 'Industrial Revolution'.

jezzupe receive the light from you.Thank you David

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, David Beard said:

 

Yikes!!!

Is this what happens when you stop saying 'rationals are enough' and you start seeing special irrationals and Pythagorean truths all over the place?

 

 

"I'm here to prove that drug fueled insanity is not a force but is an effect" :rolleyes: they make their own rules in hollyweird

I can just see him with his salaried posse now, "ya boss, straight lines, Pythagarus" I mean look, everyone knows were surrounded by air and that technically therefore we should all just be floating away like balloons but I will prove how that's just an effect and not a force :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...