Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> writes: > On 11/14/21, 9:33 AM, "David Kastrup" <d...@gnu.org> wrote: > > Kieren MacMillan <kie...@kierenmacmillan.info> writes: > > > Hi David, > > > >> How is that uniquely identified? Why couldn't it be > > subscripted with 10 instead of 5? > > > > I suppose it could. It could also be subscripted with a π or a √2. I > > can’t stop people from doing what they want to do. > > > > Simultaneously true is the fact that the musical duration “one > > quintuplet-sixteenth” has one and only one visual representation, > > regardless of what Lilypond thinks or is told to do. > > Again you are evading the stated problem. The question was about the > representation of time signature 8/20, not about "one > quintuplet-sixteenth". 8/20 does not specify more than the basic > subdivision for expressing beats (not necessarily identical with the > number of beats as signatures like 9/8 show) and how much material fits > a bar. It does not identify how that material may be structured or > expressed, in opposition to your and Carl's statements about what > meaning the parts of a time signature are supposed to inherently have, > leading to a proposal of generally changing the current representation > by involving musical durations for the denominator. > > David, > > Do disagree with the statement that "The 20 on the bottom of the time > signature indicates a duration of 1/20 of a whole note"?
In LilyPond terms, 1/20 of a whole note is not a duration. It can be a Moment. > If you disagree with this, what do you think the 20 on the bottom of > the time signature means? 1/20 of the length of a whole note. Which is not a duration as such in LilyPond and thus cannot be properly represented by one. -- David Kastrup