Re: Solo ea


Subject: Re: Solo ea
From: Richard Wentk (richard@skydancer.com)
Date: Fri Feb 11 2005 - 20:47:08 EST


At 00:52 12/02/2005, you wrote:

>My understanding is that "countably infinite" is an oxymoron, perhaps like
>describing the ineffable (as distinct from proscribing the "f"able).

No, because countability is a process, and 'infinite' is a limit on that
process.

All it means is that you can repeat the process over and over, and the set
that results has the qualities of a certain infinite number.

Maths recognises more than one kind of infinity. Sometimes the distinction
is useful.

>The linguistic failure is that "work of music" has remained undefined in
>the proposed analysis. Is it a "work of music" because something (god or
>buddha perhaps, or perhaps Sartre, or Beckett) defined it as such, or
>because it is labeled as such by a person or people?

It's music. Who needs an excuse? Sometimes the ineffable is best left uneffed.

>>In other words, if we consider a history of music to consist of an
>>infinitely long CD, no such CD and no such history contains all possible music.

More to the point - what would you play it on? ;)

If you make a minor alteration and define your music set to be of arbitrary
maximum length and arbitrary frequency and time resolution - then by
permutation of all the possible frequency and time distributions you have a
finite, if very big, number of possible musics of that duration.

I suppose a project to compose and perform such a thing might even get
funding, and very likely a write up in Slashdot too.

I probably wouldn't want to listen to it though.

Richard



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:06 EST