Degradation Of Modern Culture

[Leilin]

You've said much that I can agree with there, Keiff, but also a few logical holes that I take issue with.

On the possibility of a "new" song, you say that there are a limited number of melodies based on the presence of an 8-note scale. I feel that this discounts several factors:

1: Many songs have notes outside of the scale in their melodies. A diminished note is an excellent way of creating audio tension. It would be more accurate to say that there is a 12-note scale, using the chromatic.

2: While there is a limited scale, mezzotones are a valid and often used musical tactic.

3: Doing the math, even working under a melody that would be two bars, even if ALL of the notes were quarternotes:

13^8: 81,573,0721.

81 million melodies possible using only quarter-notes, no harmonies, and only two-bar melodies.

What if that melody is comprised of eighth notes?

13^16: 665,416,609,183,179,800

665 quadrillion posssible melodies, using only eighth notes, using no harmonies, no syncopation, no nothing except for a melody with straight notes.

And, of course, the melody is only one variable of a song.

Do you think there have been 665 quadrillion songs written yet? Sure, it's finite if you use that definition, but with the possibility of mezzotones, as are used in several eastern scales, it's really not all that finite, as those tones are not as strictly defined and, furthermore, there is no technical limit on the length of a melody. Just look at classical German opera, where a melody can extend, unrepeated (save references) for literally hours.

And, of course, we're nowhere near reaching that number which ONLY defines two-bar eighth note melodies. Many other melodies extend out for four, eight, or, most commonly, 12 bars. That's also not counting for the possibility of NOT playing a note at all in one space, which increases the possibilities by another order of magnitude, making roughly 7 quintillion two-bar melodies possible using only eighth notes. Are they all pleasant and wonderful melodies? Not in my eyes, but that does not discount their existence, and artistic merit is not a measure of taste, but of intent and presence. The simple fact is not all songs stick to 32nd notes, not all songs stick to 10 bar phrases, not all songs play all 32 notes, and many songs repeat a note within a bar. Furthermore, we still haven't factored in harmony, which multiplies that output by 12, lyric, which multiplies it by millions, modulation, which multiplies it by an inconceivable amount, tone, which does the same, and instrumentation.

While most art is created by measure of outside influence, does that make it less artistic? I personally think not. After all, great pieces like Starry Night and Michaelangelo's David were created from references of some sort as well. Does that diminish their value? It certainly comes down to opinion, but I think not.

Of course, that also does not account for abstract art. I wouldn't quite say that abstract art in its extreme is measured by influences the same way art with a model is. Either way, I simply do not think that one can use art as an accurate measure of cultural degradation. One could posit that the wide presence of artists in our time, compared to older ages, has caused a dilution in the artistry of the works, but I would vehemently disagree with that. I do feel, however, that the presence of artistic competition has hampered the artist's ability to spread his or her work in a profitable sense. However, in the sense of pure artistry, places like DeviantArt (and, for musicians, Soundcloud) have made it easier than ever before to have your art seen.

The numbers that I provided concerning college entry were per capita.

While it is probably true that a small percentage of knowledge is lost per generation, it is also true that a percentage of knowledge is gained per generation. I do not see that, personally, as the degradation of modern culture. I see that as the evolution of modern culture, but perhaps that's just me. Knowledge, like pretty much everything else, changes. I think that it's fairly presumptuous to assume that old knowledge is somehow superior to new knowledge (though I LOVE me some old knowledge! There's a reason why I went to school for it. )

[Leilin]

In this sad sad world, we have lost all moral values and ethics. The intellect has taken a SHARP down turn thanks to the internet and text messaging in the fact that the mass populous rarely uses actual works anymore nor the correct spellings. Phrases like "what do" and "wat u mad?" have begun to run rampant, words are condensed just to letter such as "wut r u doin". Instead of going out and enjoying the outdoors people hide behind their illuminated computer screens and diligently type their ramblings and opinions on things they more than likely have no actual knowledge of, and furthermore what knowledge they might have is stemmed from others opinions instead of actual facts. Sadly the world has become victim tot he whim and whimsy of the online blogger to where people look to them for advice and ideals to base their own lives on.

As for the lack of moral ethics, discipline has taken a back seat to allow everyone to always be a "precious angel" that can do no wrong, and always be in first place despite where they actually fall in lifes daily battles. Instead of punishment, people are praised for their wrong doings. Of course, I refer to mainly our children.

With all the special interest groups running wild throughout the American nation, the economy is in constant uproar over things that anyone with an actual intellect would not waste the time on. Cries of foul are cried out for or against the gay community, particularly gays in the military hence the Westboro Church disturbing private funerals for grieving families who's son or daughter died while in the services. Then the NAACP crying in outrage over supposedly race based hate of which there is none, claiming police fire upon men and or women of African decent for that reason alone, of course ignoring that these people had fired upon police before hand to deem such actions by the police to transpire in the first place. Then remember, these groups were created because everyone demanded "fairness" and "equal treatment" with the end result of anyone associated with these groups being granted special priviledges. Case in point, AFRICAN AMERICAN COLLEGE FUND, where as anyone of European decent is left to fend for themselves, or the recent ruling by the supposedly supreme court in terms of the Westboro "church" stating that what they do is within their rights. I'm sorry but what they do is nothing more than spread irrational hatred and act unpatriotically.

Does that suffice in discussing the degradation of society?

Good points all, but I'd like to address them:

1: Have all people lost moral values and ethics? I certainly haven't, I feel. I don't personally feel that the percentage of people acting unethically in the world has changed, though their influence has probably grown. But, then, so has the definition of morality and ethics, between cultures. I would say that the SYSTEM we live in within the US and most developed nations is significantly more ethical and moral than previous ones (not to say that it is perfect by any means), for example Feudalism was pretty darn immoral. So was the early American system of slave ownership. Did they think so at the time? Of course not, but by today's definitions and international values on human life, they certainly would be considered immoral. However, that is totally opinion, both in your premise and my own.

Is a lack of ethics destroying our youth through the snowflake mentality? Because of the publicization of events of, let's say, overt snowflaking, a first glance at modern media would tell us yes, but that discounts the fact that such media wasn't around or interested in reporting that snowflaking as recently as 20-25 years ago. That being said, boy are there a lot of awful parents out there...

I think that it is fallacious to assume that there is no more racism out there. Come out to Vegas and I'll walk you into the territory of at least three white supremacist (and one Latino supremacist, and one Black supremacist) gangs. Does racism still exist in our systems today? It seems you contradict yourself with that one, but perhaps you were only referring to anti-minority racism? Either way, there are actually college funds for students of European descent as well. They simply aren't as popular.

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/27/texas-group-offers-scholarships-to-white-men-only/

I don't personally have a problem with this, as long as the heart of the group providing the scholarship is in the right place. However, that's a meaninglessly small scholarship (it would have bought me one textbook, plus 30 dollars, when I was in school).

So yes, there is still some institutional racism out there, and I feel that it goes every way, and varies in intensity based on the region you live in.

Does it reach all the way up to the Federal? I do not feel that such is any longer the case. The glass ceiling has effectively been shattered.

And, finally, WBC. Do I hate their message, their actions, and pretty much everything about them? Absolutely. Do I think that any limiting of free speech without a clear and present danger would represent a significantly more severe degradation of culture than WBC does? Absolutely.

I feel that for each of these travesties to be found, there is a thing of beauty created by modern culture, placing it in a sort of equilibrium, and, of course, I prefer to look at culture as the international whole at this time, rather than just that of the US.

[curiositykilledthecat]

All I know is I grew up in the public schools at that point in connecticut where the left wing feminism tarted taking over. I watched what I was taught becoming increasingly more restricted, ignorant and politically incorrect year after year. I watched the pilgrims go from "Persecuted Christians from England and Dutch Nationals fleeing oppression", or something along to those lines to the pilgrims just being the religiously oppressed to just being someone who traveled. I have watched as we were lied to, misinformed and bullshitted because it became more important in this country to preach an agenda of political-correctness and feel-goodology than it was to educate and prepare us for the world. I was one year ahead of most of the revisionist history writing and p.c. garbage. I recall spending an entire day in eighth grade taking stupid quizzes asking how I felt about myself, others and life. This was none of their damn business so they got all the bullshit answers. Since it was anonymous I decided to tell them I smoke 7 packs of cigarettes a week, cut myself and want to murder my classmates(though this last one at that stage in my life was really not that inaccurate). I always hated school and hated it even more when I was 'educated' based on someone's own personal agenda and not based purely on facts and allowing me to make my own decision. I've done both public and private and have seen it done to both extremes and it was rather comical. I have had a few great teachers who I still remember to this day because they took their job with passion and not just as another union flunky who has a guaranteed paycheck regardless of performance. you want to fix quality, discipline your kids and remove the union influence being held over the public by the teacher's unions. when you can be fired for doing a shitty job, you tend not to do one. Tenure is a joke and I have seen how it ruins entire classrooms. I have several friends who teach, albeit it's music, however they still teach. hey enjoy their work and bust their butt simply because they're not tenured yet.

End of rant that probably was irrelevant two pages ago.

[Leilin]

While I disagree with your points, Curiosity, I think you're just fine posting them now. This thread didn't become a real discussion until relatively recently in the thread and your opinions are valued. Again, I personally disagree, but you are welcome to those opinions. It sounds like you had a rough time, which gave you ample ammo for them.

[Luci Vaughn]

Seriously, whomever keeps neg1ing my post on here, understand that it was a bloody joke! I'm not heterophobic, nor am I distinctly anti-Naruto. I don't really care one way or another.

~Luci

[Leilin]

Seriously, whomever keeps neg1ing my post on here, understand that it was a bloody joke! I'm not heterophobic, nor am I distinctly anti-Naruto. I don't really care one way or another.

~Luci

Luci: Postings in a topic that are irrelevant to that topic, attempts to start arguments, or contain needless swearing are often neg-repped by other members of the community. Of course, sometimes postings that people just disagree with are neg-repped as well.

I did not personally neg-rep your post, but I thought you might like some clarification.

[babykeiff]

You've said much that I can agree with there, Keiff, but also a few logical holes that I take issue with.

On the possibility of a "new" song, you say that there are a limited number of melodies based on the presence of an 8-note scale. I feel that this discounts several factors:

1: Many songs have notes outside of the scale in their melodies. A diminished note is an excellent way of creating audio tension. It would be more accurate to say that there is a 12-note scale, using the chromatic.

2: While there is a limited scale, mezzotones are a valid and often used musical tactic.

3: Doing the math, even working under a melody that would be two bars, even if ALL of the notes were quarternotes:

13^8: 81,573,0721.

81 million melodies possible using only quarter-notes, no harmonies, and only two-bar melodies.

What if that melody is comprised of eighth notes?

13^16: 665,416,609,183,179,800

665 quadrillion posssible melodies, using only eighth notes, using no harmonies, no syncopation, no nothing except for a melody with straight notes.

And, of course, the melody is only one variable of a song.

Do you think there have been 665 quadrillion songs written yet? Sure, it's finite if you use that definition, but with the possibility of mezzotones, as are used in several eastern scales, it's really not all that finite, as those tones are not as strictly defined and, furthermore, there is no technical limit on the length of a melody. Just look at classical German opera, where a melody can extend, unrepeated (save references) for literally hours.

And, of course, we're nowhere near reaching that number which ONLY defines two-bar eighth note melodies. Many other melodies extend out for four, eight, or, most commonly, 12 bars. That's also not counting for the possibility of NOT playing a note at all in one space, which increases the possibilities by another order of magnitude, making roughly 7 quintillion two-bar melodies possible using only eighth notes. Are they all pleasant and wonderful melodies? Not in my eyes, but that does not discount their existence, and artistic merit is not a measure of taste, but of intent and presence. The simple fact is not all songs stick to 32nd notes, not all songs stick to 10 bar phrases, not all songs play all 32 notes, and many songs repeat a note within a bar. Furthermore, we still haven't factored in harmony, which multiplies that output by 12, lyric, which multiplies it by millions, modulation, which multiplies it by an inconceivable amount, tone, which does the same, and instrumentation.

While most art is created by measure of outside influence, does that make it less artistic? I personally think not. After all, great pieces like Starry Night and Michaelangelo's David were created from references of some sort as well. Does that diminish their value? It certainly comes down to opinion, but I think not.

Of course, that also does not account for abstract art. I wouldn't quite say that abstract art in its extreme is measured by influences the same way art with a model is. Either way, I simply do not think that one can use art as an accurate measure of cultural degradation. One could posit that the wide presence of artists in our time, compared to older ages, has caused a dilution in the artistry of the works, but I would vehemently disagree with that. I do feel, however, that the presence of artistic competition has hampered the artist's ability to spread his or her work in a profitable sense. However, in the sense of pure artistry, places like DeviantArt (and, for musicians, Soundcloud) have made it easier than ever before to have your art seen.

The numbers that I provided concerning college entry were per capita.

While it is probably true that a small percentage of knowledge is lost per generation, it is also true that a percentage of knowledge is gained per generation. I do not see that, personally, as the degradation of modern culture. I see that as the evolution of modern culture, but perhaps that's just me. Knowledge, like pretty much everything else, changes. I think that it's fairly presumptuous to assume that old knowledge is somehow superior to new knowledge (though I LOVE me some old knowledge! There's a reason why I went to school for it. )

It is interesting discussing this with you.

Yes, you are correct in what you state that although maths will prove there is a finite number of pieces, this number of pieces has yet to be created. However, due to human nature - we repeat what pleases us either deliberately or subconsciously. Sigmund Freud stated this, and with music, most pieces today are somewhat a copy of previous pieces. This does, in no way, take away from the composer of a specific tune, nor does it show a lack of knowledge or ability. Each piece is unique in its own right, but in the same way, each piece is a copy of previous work. Yes, it is possible to create a new and unique piece, but it will also create a piece that very few will want to hear. extrapulation from Freud. Similar circumstances exist in art and all art forms. Yes, a new piece will be unique, but also a copy in some form of previous works. Maths will provide a finite number before all is repeated, but I personally don't think that number will ever be reached.

Old knowledge vs new knowledge.

In some ways - via a loss of skill-base, the worlds knowledge is degrading, and in some ways, via the creation of new skills, the world is gaining. This is, what we call, progress, and in my opinion, this is good. One can chose the optimistic view or the pessimistic view. I choose the realists view, and encourage progress even if it is at a cost. The reason is that we, as humans, need to learn from mistakes.

ALL:

In reference to the rep system here. It seems to me that some members are using the rep system to express their disagreement to a specific post. The concept of a discussion board / democracy is that if you disagree, voice your disagreement by writing a post. Yes, if it is valid, the points may be discussed rationally by most here. All the + rep or -rep action is doing is nothing. Those here that have something to say really don't care about it, and those that don't - by not saying anything - don't have a voice, and in my opinion - don't matter.

Personally, I like people reading my posts, including the admins / owner. I say what I mean, and if the admins / owners / others don't like it, they have the courage to tell me. In this world, negative comments is more valuable than good. I don't need someone to polish my halo, I can do that very well myself. I do, however, appreciate it, when someone tells me that I am wrong / made a mistake.

[Leilin]

I think you and I have found a rather enjoyable middle ground and understanding here, Keiff. I've very much enjoyed this discussion.

[aleyxsis]

stop with the numbers !!!!!!!!lol

[Leilin]

stop with the numbers !!!!!!!!lol

Heehee. Sorry. Some of us can be mathy at times. What do you think of the topic? Is culture degrading? changing? Maybe its even getting better? Let us know.

[aleyxsis]

I think it is a great subject Leilin!! and you guys sure know your math !!lol .I was getting dizzy with the numbers lol

[babykeiff]

I promise, no numbers here...

Contrary to popular belief, I think that society is degreading, and will continue to degrade to a level where one will not be able to comprehend the value of what was lost. As proven in earlier post, skill-sets are being lost. Will we ever need those specific skillsets again - I think that we will, and when we realise that, we will have lost too much to be able to retrace our steps.

Everything has a finite lifetime, and as such, the great art works of yesteryear will eventually crumble and decay. Without the ability to repair / replace same, works will be lost, but what is worse, when they are gone and forgotten, nobody will be aware of their existence. Even today while we admire some artwork, we are unable to reproduce same since the skillset used originally is lost.

[Diapered Jason]

I promise, no numbers here...

Contrary to popular belief, I think that society is degreading, and will continue to degrade to a level where one will not be able to comprehend the value of what was lost. As proven in earlier post, skill-sets are being lost. Will we ever need those specific skillsets again - I think that we will, and when we realise that, we will have lost too much to be able to retrace our steps.

Everything has a finite lifetime, and as such, the great art works of yesteryear will eventually crumble and decay. Without the ability to repair / replace same, works will be lost, but what is worse, when they are gone and forgotten, nobody will be aware of their existence. Even today while we admire some artwork, we are unable to reproduce same since the skillset used originally is lost.

I disagree.

True, master skilled workers are becoming a thing of the past, but we still have the knowledge available and there are still people who can teach it. Take for example the ancient art of Japanese swordsmithing. It is amazing how they were able to craft blades with a sharp brittle edge but with a softer more flexible backing to the blade making it much more durable than their European counterpart. They use processes made possible by experimentation that now modern science clearly explains. Not everything disappears with time. There are people who still make swords using this technique. In fact, things can become more famous with time.

Sure modern culture is degrading into more modern culture with some negative benefits, but that is such a poor way of looking at change. I think people are afraid of change, and that is what this thread is really about. The news has become inaccurate as of late, but it is very accurate in showing this fear, a fear that has always existed.

One last thing I want to address. Music is infinite. There are an unlimited amount of sounds you can make because there exists an infinite amount of audible frequencies of sound.

[babykeiff]

...

One last thing I want to address. Music is infinite. There are an unlimited amount of sounds you can make because there exists an infinite amount of audible frequencies of sound.

Mathematically EVERYTHING bar one, has a finite number of permutations. Music has a huge number, but it is still finite. The one thing that has an infinite number is a mathematical divisor. I will give you a puzzle as an example...

If a man is a set distance away from his destination, and for each step he takes is half the remaining distance, will he ever reach his destination. The answer is NO. Therefore, the step count is truely infintite.

Try this on a calculator, take any number and repitively divide it by a fixed number. Will you ever reach 0? You will due to the limit of the calculator, but mathemically 0 is impossible to reach by division.

With music, there is a fixed number of notes (fn), a fixed number of durations (nd), a fixed number of pauses (np) and a fixed number of instruments (fi). Since the length of a piece of music is determined by a composer, this can incorrectly be classed as infinite, but we also have a range, which is the minimum life expectancy (mle) to the maximum life expectancy (mxe), both figures are fixed. It is correct to assume that a composer will compose a piece of music within his own lifetime. Therefore, the mathematical formulae works out as fn-1 ^ nd-1 ^ np-1 ^ fi-1 ^ (mle : mxe) which will equate a very large, but fixed value. One can decrease this value by subtracting the harmonic dischords. Even if you wish to chose the note seperation as small as 1hz, the audio range is 20hz to 20,000hz which is 19,981 individual steps. We can seperate this to .01 hz per step, but this still gives a FIXED number.

Despite this, the number of musical compositions are large, but finite.

[Diapered Jason]

With music, there is a fixed number of notes (fn), a fixed number of durations (nd), a fixed number of pauses (np) and a fixed number of instruments (fi).

Sigh, that is where I think you are wrong as there is not a fixed number of instruments. Even if you look at the same type of instrument, but different manufacturer, no note will sound the same. There are also an infinite many ways of playing a note that was not factored into your math. I guess by my logic, even the same series of notes will not be exactly the same when played again, because it cannot be precisely replicated.

You cannot say with certainty that everything in the universe is finite, just because math says infinity is not a number. For example, we have yet to discover every element as we are still synthesizing new elements through particle acceleration research. One possible theory is the universe is expanding to infinity. There is also the multiverse theory, which states there are an infinite amount of parallel universes in relation to our own. Keep in mind, mathematics is a tool to help you understand things, but math likes to contradict itself.

[babykeiff]

Sigh, that is where you are wrong as there is not a fixed number of instruments. Even if you look at the same type of instrument, but different manufacturer, no note will sound the same. There are also an infinite many ways of playing a note that was not factored into your math.

You cannot say with certainty that everything in the universe is finite, just because infinity is not a number. For example, we have yet to discover every element as we are still synthesizing new elements through particle acceleration research. One possible theory is the universe is expanding to infinity. I do not know if you follow you math enough to know about the multiverse theory, which states there are an infinite amount of parallel universes in relation to our own. Keep in mind, mathematics is a tool to help you understand things and it likes to contradict itself.

You are incorrect to say that there is NOT a finite number of instruments. Today, as at a specific time, there IS a fixed number of instruments. Yes, the number of instruments are constantly changing, but at a specific moment in time, there IS a fixed number. Also, there is a fixed way of playing each note as of a specific instant. Yes, these numbers WILL change, but with fixed numbers multiplying against each other, there will always be a fixed result, which is called a FINITE NUMBER. No matter what we decide to calculate (add / subtract / multiply), there will always be a result which will be finite.

As I stated already, and the proof exists, the only true infinite number is obtained from division.

Definition:

finite = having limits

infinite = without limit / boundless

Also, mathematics is more than a 'tool'. It is a science in itself, and when applied correctly, will never contradict itself.

Examples of Infinite numbers...

set of integers

set of numbers greater than 0

set of numbers less than 0

count of fractions of a whole number

sum of numbers that equate 0 (-1 +1, -2 +2, -3+3...

1/3 of a number represented as a percentage.

Examples of Finite Numbers

Sum of fixed numbers

Product of fixed numbers

Count of people in the world at a specific time

Count of <whatever> at a specific time

A finite number is obtained by (addition / subtraction / multiplicition ) of any one or more group of finite numbers.

An infinte number is obtained when one or more of the numbers involved in a calculation is infinite. Repeditive division creates infinite numbers since the repition count is unknown. As does addition / subtraction / multiplication of a set IF the set length is unknown - as in a set of numbers greater than 0.

[Diapered Jason]

As I stated already, and the proof exists, the only true infinite number is obtained from division.

Lol, oops. No mathematician would ever say that. Infinity is not a number. Also, I have no idea what you are trying to say. I think you are possibly actually referring to a limit, not infinity.

Anyways, the key issues of this discussion are philosophical by nature as there are no actual facts either way. It all depends on how you look at it. Well, if I say there are this many notes and this many instruments, we get this many results, but that is not the case to me. I think what you are saying is based off of a series of assumptions and I have pointed out what I think those are.

[Leilin]

Errr... a recurring decimal is not infinite. It is recurring and it is recurring because the number cannot be expressed accurately in decimal form. Similarly, Pi is not infinite. It just goes on forever. You are mixing conceptual points here and it does not serve your point well. Infinity is not and never will be a number. It is a concept of unending dimension.

Furthermore, math is not meant to fully encompass reality at all times. This is the importance of Zeno's paradox. Math without grounding in reality can be misleading and often is. It is not until one begins to get to the finer points of Calculus that math takes the path into physics. Simplistic math will NEVER provide a 100 percent accurate depiction of reality because the universe simply isn't that simple.

Still furthermore, Keiff, you are not addressing the point that Jason made. He said there is not a limit on the number of instruments because each individual instrument in the hands of an individual player sounds different if either of those variables changes, or the material that the recording is made in changes, or the style and quality of the recording apparatus changes, or any number of other factors changes. That is what Jason was alluding to. There are, essentially, an infinite number of sounds that can be made within the human hearing spectrum and therefore an infinite number of instruments that can be made to simulate various sounds.

To put this in mathematical terms.

(Length of attack) X (Timbre) X (Modulation) X (Waveform height) X (Waveform Detioration) X (Waveform Target) X (Waveform Length) X (Waveform starting point) X (Waveform Volume, Starting) X (Waveform Volume, Ending) X (Waveform irregularity, spike) X (Waveform Irregularlity, subwave) X (Pitch, starting) X (Pitch, Ending) X (Pitch modulation) X (Pitch Irregularities) X (Pitch waveform) X (Pitch Waveform Height) X (Pitch Waveform Length) etc. etc.

That's the beginning of the equation. If even ONE of those values is infinite, the outcome is infinite, and several are infinite. As you've pointed out, all integers in a range of reality description are always infinite. Anything divided by infinity is still infinite.

The argument that there is a limited number of instruments is, in other words, equally as fallacious as your argument that there is a limited number of melodies.

[Yvhuce]

One last thing I want to address. Music is infinite. There are an unlimited amount of sounds you can make because there exists an infinite amount of audible frequencies of sound.

You're right, but for the wrong reason. There is a very finite amount of audible frequencies. There are, however, infinite possible arrangements of them, since there's no defined limit on how long a musical arrangement can be. It could theoretically be possible to make an arrangement that lasts forever, simply by never ending it. Or just by looping one note forever.

Errr... a recurring decimal is not infinite. It is recurring and it is recurring because the number cannot be expressed accurately in decimal form. Similarly, Pi is not infinite. It just goes on forever. You are mixing conceptual points here and it does not serve your point well. Infinity is not and never will be a number. It is a concept of unending dimension.

Tomato... Nightshade... "Goes on forever" is one of the subsets of "infinite". Infinity itself is just a representation of that idea. Ironically, a Mobius Loop isn't, however. That's actually a finite shape...

[Diapered Jason]

You're right, but for the wrong reason. There is a very finite amount of audible frequencies. There are, however, infinite possible arrangements of them, since there's no defined limit on how long a musical arrangement can be. It could theoretically be possible to make an arrangement that lasts forever, simply by never ending it. Or just by looping one note forever.

How many numbers are there between 20 and 20,000?

[ldatsea]

4?

[Leilin]

Edit: Weird posting error.

[Leilin]

Edit: Weird posting error Pt. 2. O_O

[Leilin]

Tomato... Nightshade... "Goes on forever" is one of the subsets of "infinite". Infinity itself is just a representation of that idea. Ironically, a Mobius Loop isn't, however. That's actually a finite shape...

When a fraction cannot be represented in decimal form that is not called an "infinite" number. That is usually called a "recurring" number (if the digits repeat, such as Keiff's example) or an irrational number (such as Pi). Calling those numbers infinite is like me calling the length of a movie infinite because I can't measure it in entire seconds.

You're right, but for the wrong reason. There is a very finite amount of audible frequencies. There are, however, infinite possible arrangements of them, since there's no defined limit on how long a musical arrangement can be. It could theoretically be possible to make an arrangement that lasts forever, simply by never ending it. Or just by looping one note forever.

This is incorrect. There is an infinite number of audible frequencies, but it is unlikely whether the differences between those frequencies can be determined by the naked or untrained ear. Remember that audio frequency is created by a wavelength. There are no more "finite" wavelengths available on the audio spectrum than there finite numbers between twenty and twenty thousand. The notes on the western scale themselves are almost all fractions of Herz (The measurement of that wavelength in Frequency) As Jason accurately pointed out, there are infinite numbers between the 20 and 20,000 Hz, give or take, that make up the average audible spectrum.

[babykeiff]

To take into account all what is said, in one way, there is NO way to reproduce music, as each attempt cannot accurately enough reproduce what the composer intended. Oberving that, it is true that music is infinite. However, accepting the limitations within the composer, ones ability to document music and therefore reproduce it as close to the composers design as possible, we WILL get a fixed amount of notes, a fixed length of notes available etc, which when multiplied together WILL give a fixed number. The lenght of a pievce of music is within the range of being able to be performed within the composers lifetime, therefore, we also have a maximum length for a piece of music. As a result, mathematically, we can get a large, but fixed and finite number of possible music pieces, as I have already stated.