Quote:
Originally Posted by Gongchime
DOFTS Books on creativity say to use an abstract metaphor. That music is like a language was taken. Also, it was easy to find a list of letters ranked by percent of use. It's rather difficult to find Phonemes ranked by frequency and probably even more difficult to use.
What groups do you imagine were monotonic? Were in fact any groups discussed except a group of letters and notes. Then you imagine that it was "mistook" and not intentional. Or just said that so as have something to post in order to contradict what was posted. And yes, that's what the scientists were referring to. Duh!
|
I probably spoke over your head, Oh well. When you compare sets you form groups, group theory 101. When you see relationship between group 1(music) and group2 (language,) you are doing a study of group theory. You then broke each group into subgroups. The subgroups you choose are defined to be monotonic because their exist an upper and lower bond within the set. More so it is increasing or non-decreasing.
You shouldn't even be operating on list of what appears more often. If you want to express a true relationship, it's often better to do an analyst of the development of language and what music was doing during that time.
For example, when people spoke old english, how did music sound? What relationship occurred? Yes, I know it's tough work to answer those questions and it actually takes time and effort. But that's research.
Every result you posted earlier is trivial. It's like saying, pi is irrational because it isn't rational. Well yes...