---
title: "Symmetries of Hyperplane Arrangements and ineqsym()"
output: rmarkdown::html_vignette
vignette: >
  %\VignetteIndexEntry{Symmetries of Hyperplane Arrangements and ineqsym()}
  %\VignetteEngine{knitr::rmarkdown}
  %\VignetteEncoding{UTF-8}
---

```{r, include = FALSE}
knitr::opts_chunk$set(
  collapse = TRUE,
  comment = "#>"
)
```

```{r setup}
library(musicMCT)
```

# Introduction 

This vignette shows how to use musicMCT to work with the concepts introduced in the paper "Symmetries of the Modal Color Theory Hyperplane Arrangements." It will introduce relevant tools in an order that roughly corresponds to the paper's organization. (Sections are numbered
to correspond with the sections of the paper, too.) I've tried to write it to be accessible for readers coming to musicMCT from "Symmetries," so it introduces some basic aspects of R syntax that might be useful for applications of the paper.

## 1.2: Scales, intervals, etc.

R is a 1-indexed language, so the "tonic" of a scale is denoted by $\hat{1}$ rather than by $\hat{0}$ as in Definition 1 of "Symmetries." This is mathematically inconvenient, but at least it aligns well with conventional music theory.

Working in R, generally we will want to consider an n-note periodic **scale** as represented by a tuple in [cpitch]{.smallcaps}$^n$, along the lines of Definition 3's discussion. A scale can be entered directly in terms of its pitch content using the following syntax:

```{r}
blues <- c(0, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10)
```

We will use this six-note blues scale, $(C, E\flat, F, F\sharp, G, B\flat)$, as an example throughout this discussion. There are, however, other ways to specify a scale, such as from its description in terms of its relative step sizes or as a maximally even scale in some cardinality:

```{r}
double_harmonic <- realize_stepword(c(1, 3, 1, 2, 1, 3, 1))
blackkey_pentatonic <- maxeven(5, 12)
all_interval_tetrachord <- sc(4, 29)

print(double_harmonic)
print(blackkey_pentatonic)
print(all_interval_tetrachord)
```

We can access an individual scale degree of a scale as follows:

```{r}
blackkey_pentatonic[3]
```

This tells us that $\hat{3}$ of the familiar pentatonic scale is a major third above the tonic.

The coordinate system denoted by $\Phi_n$ (Definition 4) is realized by `coord_to_edo()`, named because it shifts an input to the **coord**inate system where the **e**qual **d**ivision of the **o**ctave is the origin. Compare Example 3 to the following code block:

```{r}
c_major <- c(0, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11)
coord_to_edo(c_major)

coord_to_edo(blues)
```

The inverse function is given by `coord_from_edo()`:

```{r}
cis_diminished <- c(1, 0, -1)
coord_from_edo(cis_diminished)
```

The perfectly even scale which serves as the origin for $\Phi_n$ can be created with `edoo()`, whose name stands for "**e**qual **d**ivision of the **o**ctave **o**rigin":

```{r}
augmented_triad <- edoo(3)
equiheptatonic_scale <- edoo(7)

print(augmented_triad)
print(equiheptatonic_scale)

# edoo(n) does look like the origin after applying coord_to_edo():
coord_to_edo(equiheptatonic_scale)
```

Given a generic interval $g$ and a scale degree $\hat{i}$, the specific interval $g$ scale steps above $\hat{i}$ can be calculated as follows:

```{r}
g <- 2
i <- 4
sim(blues)[g+1, i]
```

This tells us that interval spanned by two generic steps above scale degree $\hat{4}$ in the `blues` scale is 4 semitones large. (Remember that, in R, scale degrees start from $\hat{1}$ rather than $\hat{0}$.)

## 1.3: Hyperplane arrangements

For a given $n$, the hyperplane arrangement $\mathcal{M}_n$ described by Definition 6 can be accessed in R via the function `getineqmat()`. The "ineqmat" in the function's name abbreviates the phrase **ineq**uality **mat**rix. The hyperplanes of $\mathcal{M}_n$ are generally referred to as "inequalities" or `ineq`s in musicMCT because they are thought of as representing inequalities in the sizes of scalar intervals, as described on pp. 17–19 of "Modal Color Theory."

For instance, the tetrachordal arrangement $\mathcal{M}_4$ is defined by the following matrix:

```{r}
tetrachord_arrangement <- getineqmat(4)
print(tetrachord_arrangement)
```

Excluding the last column, each row of the matrix contains the normal vector for some hyperplane $H^g_{i, j}$. The final column contains constants that translate the hyperplanes so that they intersect at the equal division of the octave. (The package musicMCT is designed to take inputs represented as pitch sets, not using $\Phi_n$'s coordinate system. The matrix needs its last column to make this work.)

Here is Example 5 realized in musicMCT:

```{r}
dom7 <- c(0, 4, 7, 10)
x <- coord_to_edo(dom7)

hyperplane_v <- tetrachord_arrangement[7, ]
print(hyperplane_v)

# Let's leave off the last column:
hyperplane_v <- hyperplane_v[-5]
print(hyperplane_v)

# Now we can take the dot product of v and x as in the example:
hyperplane_v %*% x
```

Although this is not discussed in "Symmetries," musicMCT has a function that performs calculations like Example 5, comparing an input set to all the hyperplanes in $\mathcal{M}_n$. This function, `signvector()` returns only signs (`-1`, `0`, and `1`) rather than specific values (like the value 2 in Example 2). This is because we generally only care about the relative position of a set to a hyperplane, not its absolute distance. The sign vector for the chord in Example 5 is:

```{r}
signvector(dom7)
```

The seventh value in the above sign vector is positive, corresponding to our observation above that $\vec{v} \cdot \vec{x} > 0$. We look at the seventh position in the sign vector because `hyperplane_v` happens to be given as the seventh row in `tetrachord_arrangement`'s arbitrary ordering of the hyperplanes.

In Example 4, the hyperplane $H^2_{0, 3}$ happens to be the twenty-third row in the matrix for $\mathcal{M}_7$. Thus we can confirm the result $\vec{v} \cdot \vec{x} = 0$ from Example 4 for the major scale by:

```{r}
signvector(c_major)[23]
```

# 2: Symmetries of MCT Arrangements

The symmetries of $\mathcal{M}_n$ described in this section are realized by the function `ineqsym()`. The function's name is an abbreviation of **ineq**uality-matrix **sym**metry.

For given $a$, $b$, and $n$, we can use `ineqsym()` to realize the linear transformations defined in Definition 8. The value $n$ is specified for `ineqsym()` by the argument `card`, since it determines the **card**inality of the scales to be considered. Given inputs for its arguments `a`, `b`, and `card`, `ineqsym()` will return the permutation matrix $P_{\pi}$ corresponding to the linear transformation $\Pi$. For instance, here are the permutation matrices from Example 6:

```{r}
# P_theta:
ineqsym(a=2, b=0, card=5)

# P_psi:
ineqsym(a=2, b=1, card=5)
```

In general, we do not need to work directly with such matrices in R. `ineqsym()` can also take a scale directly as an input, with the argument `set`, returning the image of the scale under $\Pi$. For instance, here are the transformations of the pentatonic scale from Example 6:

```{r}
# Using the transformation Theta:
ineqsym(set=blackkey_pentatonic, a=2, b=0)

# Using the transformation Psi:
ineqsym(set=blackkey_pentatonic, a=2, b=1)
```

If arguments are not explicitly named, `ineqsym()` assumes that they are intended as `set`, `a`, and `b` in that order:

```{r}
image_of_blues <- ineqsym(blues, 5, 0)

print(image_of_blues)
fortenum(image_of_blues)
```

Thus the blues scale (Forte set class 6-47) becomes, under the operation of $\sigma_{5, 0}$, an instance of set class 6-27.

As suggested by Corollary 2 and its discussion, the linear transformations created by `ineqsym()` are structure-preserving symmetries of $\mathcal{M}_n$. This means that they preserve many properties of musical scales. One such property is given by the function `spectrumcount()`, which determines how many distinct sizes each generic interval takes within a scale. For instance, a scale with "Myhill's Property" has two specific sizes for each generic interval. The usual pentatonic and diatonic are two such scales:

```{r}
spectrumcount(blackkey_pentatonic)
spectrumcount(c_major)
```

The list of values returned by `spectrumcount()` is preserved, up to reordering, by the action of `ineqsym()`. We can see this in the following examples:

```{r}
spectrumcount(blackkey_pentatonic)
spectrumcount(ineqsym(blackkey_pentatonic, 2, 0))

spectrumcount(blues)
spectrumcount(image_of_blues)
```

By luck, even the *order* of the values in the above examples are preserved by the transformation. For an instance where a scale's spectrum count is reordered by the transformation, we can use the melodic minor scale:

```{r}
melodic_minor <- c(0, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11)
melmin_image <- ineqsym(melodic_minor, 2, 0)

spectrumcount(melodic_minor)
spectrumcount(melmin_image)
```

The melodic minor scale has only 2 sizes of generic second and third (and their inversions: sixths and sevenths), but 3 sizes of fourth and fifth. Its image under the permutation $\sigma_{2,0}$ similarly has mostly 2 specific sizes for each generic interval, except in this case for its seconds (and sevenths), which come in 3 sizes.

That `ineqsym()` preserves the values of `spectrumcount()` is a consequence of the paper's observation that the symmetries in $\mathcal{P}_n$ always map every instance of generic interval $g$ to an instance of generic interval $ag$. As described in "Symmetries," the symbol $\mathcal{H}^k_n$ denotes the subarrangement of $\mathcal{M}_n$ consisting of only the hyperplanes associated with the generic interval $k$. The function `get_relevant_rows()` allows us to define these subarrangements. The example below demonstrates this for $n=4$ and $k=2$, i.e. for generic skips in tetrachordal scales:

```{r}
k <- 2
rows_with_skips <- get_relevant_rows(k, tetrachord_arrangement)
print(rows_with_skips)

skip_subarrangement <- tetrachord_arrangement[rows_with_skips, ]
print(skip_subarrangement)
```

Finally, at the end of $\S 2$, the operation of scalar involution is mentioned. This, too, can be realized by `ineqsym()` using the `involution` argument. For instance, the matrix $-I_5$ for involutions of pentachords can be gotten by:

```{r}
ineqsym(card=5, a=1, b=0, involution=TRUE)
```

Similarly, sets can be directly involuted:

```{r}
blues_involution <- ineqsym(blues, involution=TRUE)
print(blues_involution)

fortenum(blues_involution)

normal_form(blues_involution, optic="optc")
normal_form(image_of_blues, optic="optc")
```

This shows that the scalar involution of the `blues` scale belongs to the same set class, 6-27, as the `image_of_blues` under $\sigma_{5,0}$ from above. However, the two have different OPTC-normal forms (after Hook 2023, 416–18), so they must be related by some $T_nI$ inversion.

# 3: Orbits as equivalence classes of scale structure

## 3.1: Brightness Graphs

The brightness graph of a scale can be sketched in musicMCT using the function `brightnessgraph()`. The diagram produced by this function is a *reduced* brightness graph, to be contrasted with the *unreduced* brightness graph of Definition 10. The former are a transitive reduction of the latter, removing arrows between nodes when a directed path between the nodes can be composed from other arrows in the graph.

We can demonstrate the brightness graphs, and their preservation under `ineqsym()`, with the examples from Example 7:

```{r, fig.width=5, fig.height=5, fig.fullwidth=TRUE}
#| fig.alt: >
#|   A graph repesenting relationships between modes of the tetrachord F.
#|   Each node of the graph represents a mode of the scale. Arrows point from darker
#|   modes to brighter modes. The graph for tetrachord F has a node labeled one as its
#|   lowest node. Node one is connected by an arrow to node four, above it. It is also connected
#|   by a separate arrow to node two, which is connected by a final arrow to node 3.

tetrachord_F <- c(0, 2, 4, 7)
tetrachord_G <- c(0, 1, 4, 8)

brightnessgraph(tetrachord_F)
```

```{r, fig.width=5, fig.height=5, fig.fullwidth=TRUE}
#| fig.alt: >
#|   A graph representing relationships between modes of tetrachord G.
#|   The overall arrangement of arrows matches that of the graph for tetrachord F,
#|   but the nodes are labeled differently. Node four is in the middle, not node two.
brightnessgraph(tetrachord_G)
```

These graphs contain extra information about the scale, as described in "Modal Color Theory," pp. 7–11. To see just the mathematical graphs themselves, closer in appearance to Example 7 of "Symmetries," we can use arguments to `brightnessgraph()` as follows:

```{r, fig.width=5, fig.height=5, fig.fullwidth=TRUE}
#| fig.alt: >
#|   Another image of the brightness graph for tetrachord F, which does not include
#|   numbers listing the notes of each mode.

brightnessgraph(tetrachord_F, show_sums=FALSE, show_pitches=FALSE)
```

```{r, fig.width=5, fig.height=5, fig.fullwidth=TRUE}
#| fig.alt: >
#|   Another image of the brightness graph for tetrachord G, which does not include
#|   numbers listing the notes of each mode.
brightnessgraph(tetrachord_G, show_sums=FALSE, show_pitches=FALSE)
```

Note that the source node at the bottom of each graph is labeled with the roman numeral for 1, rather than 0 as in Example 7, again because of R's 1-indexing. Additionally, the horizontal placement of the graph's nodes is arbitrary, so the output of `brightnessgraph()` does not exactly match the graphs in Example 7 visually. It is easy to check, however, that they are isomorphic as graphs.

The voice leadings discussed at the end of the example can be computed in musicMCT as well:

```{r}
vlsig(tetrachord_F, index=2)
vlsig(tetrachord_G, index=1)
```

##3.2: Well-Formedness 

We can begin by testing Proposition 5 for the pentatonic scale and its images, from Example 5 above:

```{r}
iswellformed(blackkey_pentatonic)
iswellformed(ineqsym(set=blackkey_pentatonic, a=2, b=0))
iswellformed(ineqsym(set=blackkey_pentatonic, a=2, b=1))
```

Functions composed this way can be annoying to read, so sometimes you might find R's "pipe" syntax (see `|>()`) convenient:

```{r}
blackkey_pentatonic |> ineqsym(a=2, b=0) |> iswellformed()
```

The diatonic scale in 5-limit just intonation is not well-formed, but it is **pairwise well-formed** (PWF). musicMCT characterizes pairwise well-formedness as part of a broader family it calls "generalized well-formedness" (GWF for short) with 2 degrees of freedom (see "Modal Color Theory," pp. 26–7):

```{r}
just_diatonic <- j(dia) # Defined in footnote 7 of "Symmetries"

iswellformed(just_diatonic)

isgwf(just_diatonic)
howfree(just_diatonic)

# Thus it is pairwise well-formed.
# Like all PWF scales, it is trivalent:

spectrumcount(just_diatonic)
```

As $\S 3.2$ shows, the values of `iswellformed(set)` and `isgwf(set) && howfree(set)==2` are preserved under `ineqsym()`.

Example 8 demonstrates that two PWF scales need not have isomorphic brightness graphs:

```{r, fig.width=5, fig.height=5, fig.fullwidth=TRUE}
#| fig.alt: >
#|   A brightness graph for pentachord F. Modes one, two, three, and five form a diamond.
#|   Mode four is connected to mode five, adding an extra line coming off the diamond.

pentachord_F <- c(0, 1, 4, 6, 9)
pentachord_G <- c(0, 2, 3, 5, 7)

brightnessgraph(pentachord_F, show_sums=FALSE, show_pitches=FALSE)
```


```{r, fig.width=5, fig.height=5, fig.fullwidth=TRUE}
#| fig.alt: >
#|   A brightness graph for pentachord G, whose overall appearance is somewhat like
#|   a five-pointed star. More technically, it is a bipartite graph in which modes one and two
#|   belong to its bottom row and the other three modes belong to its top row.
brightnessgraph(pentachord_G, show_sums=FALSE, show_pitches=FALSE)
```

However, two scales related by a transformation in $\mathcal{P}_n$ do have isomorphic brightness graphs. For instance:

```{r, fig.width=5, fig.height=5, fig.fullwidth=TRUE}
#| fig.alt: >
#|   A brightness graph for the blues scale, arranged in three rows with
#|   modes two and three on the bottom; modes one, four and six in the middle;
#|   and mode five on the top.
brightnessgraph(blues)
```


```{r, fig.width=5, fig.height=5, fig.fullwidth=TRUE}
#| fig.alt: >
#|   A brightness graph for the image of blues scale. Its overall shape matches
#|   the grpah for the blues scale, but its modes are labeled differently. For instance,
#|   mode three rather than mode five is at the top.
brightnessgraph(image_of_blues)
```

This is not discussed in the paper, but scalar involution sends the brightness graph of a scale is sent to its *reverse* or *transpose* graph. (The reverse of a directed graph is one in which all the edges and vertices are preserved, but the arrows point in the opposite directions.) We can see this in:

```{r, fig.width=5, fig.height=5, fig.fullwidth=TRUE}
#| fig.alt: >
#|   A brightness graph for the blues involution scale. Its shape is the same as
#|   the blues graph, but turned upside-down. Instead of being at the top, mode five
#|   is at the bottom, and so on.
brightnessgraph(blues_involution)
```

Where the blues scale has a unique maximal node in its brightness graph, the `blues_involution` scale has a unique minimal node, and so on. A proof that involution corresponds to graph reversal follows straightforwardly from the definitions of involution and brightness graphs.

## Orbits are called "Scale Palettes"

The main premise of $\S 3$ is that orbits under $\mathcal{P}_n$ are meaningful equivalence classes of scale structure. It is nice, therefore, to be able to do computations on the full orbit of an scale under `ineqsym()`. This is given by the function `scale_palette()`, whose name draws on the metaphorical conceit that each scale structure is a "color," and therefore a collection of mutually consistent colors could be called a color "palette."

We can compute, for instance, the orbit of the black-key pentatonic scale. This orbit includes 20 distinct scales: 5 modes of 4 distinct well-formed pentatonic structures. Each scale is represented below as a column in a $5\times 20$ matrix.

```{r}
pentatonic_palette <- scale_palette(blackkey_pentatonic)
print(pentatonic_palette)

apply(pentatonic_palette, 2, iswellformed)
```

The last computation above shows that all 20 scales in this orbit are indeed well-formed, as we would expect. Of course, the symmetries of the space preserve many other properties too, like the `evenness()` of a scale (defined to be its Euclidean distance from the perfectly even scale):

```{r}
apply(pentatonic_palette, 2, evenness) |> round(digits=5)
```

By default, `scale_palette()` includes scalar involution in the transformations that define the orbit. To restrict our consideration to just the symmetries of $\mathcal{P}_n$, we can set the argument `include_involution` to `FALSE`. For the well-formed pentatonic scales just tested, this makes no difference, because they are symmetrical under inversion (a topic for $\S 4$). As an example of a scale where involution does make a difference, we return to the blues scale:

```{r}
blues_palette <- scale_palette(blues, include_involution=FALSE)
print(blues_palette)
```

Because 6 is a highly composite number, $\mathcal{P}_6$ includes relatively few symmetries: just the six modes corresponding to the possible values of $b$ in $\sigma_{1, b}$ and the six modes of $\sigma_{5, b}$. Therefore the palette above includes only 12 scales, representing only two $T_n$-types (OPTC-normal forms):

```{r}
apply(blues_palette, 2, normal_form, optic="optc")
```

We can double the number of scales in the palette if we include involution:

```{r}
more_blues <- scale_palette(blues, include_involution=TRUE)
print(more_blues)
```

# 4: Symmetrical Scales

We start by defining the scale from Example 9 and testing that it is fixed by $\sigma_{4, 3}$.

```{r}
golomb_ruler <- c(0, 1, 4, 9, 11)
golomb_scale <- convert(golomb_ruler, 15, 12)

coord_to_edo(golomb_scale) |> round(digits=3)
golomb_scale
ineqsym(golomb_scale, a=4, b=3) |> round(digits=3)

# This computation could also be done in 15-tone equal temperament,
# working directly with golomb_ruler and using the "edo" parameter:

coord_to_edo(golomb_ruler, edo=15)
ineqsym(golomb_ruler, a=4, b=3, edo=15)
```

As mentioned in the discussion of this example, we can explore the scales which are fixed by a given symmetry by finding the eigenvectors of the linear map. R makes this easy. We will call the matrix $P_{\pi}$ from Example 9 simply `P` in the following code block:

```{r}
P <- ineqsym(card=5, a=4, b=3)
print(P)

eigen(P)
```

The first three column vectors above correspond to the eigenvalue `1`, so any scale which is some linear combination of them will be fixed by $P_{\pi}$. 

Similarly, the last two column vectors correspond to the eigenvalue `-1`. Thus we can define a scale that is sent to its scalar involution by this transformation with any linear combination of them:

```{r}
eigenvector_y <- c(0, -1, 1, 0, 0)
eigenvector_z <- c(1, 0, 0, -1, 0)

eigenscale <- coord_from_edo(eigenvector_y + eigenvector_z)
eigenscale_involution <- coord_from_edo(-1 * (eigenvector_y + eigenvector_z))

print(eigenscale)
print(eigenscale_involution)

ineqsym(eigenscale, a=4, b=3)
```

Above, the `eigenscale_involution` was defined by multiplying `eigenscale`'s coordinate vector (from the $\Phi_5$ origin) by `-1`. The involution of a scale can also be derived using the `saturate()` function, on which see "Modal Color Theory," pp. 20–1.

```{r}
eigenscale_involution

saturate(-1, eigenscale)
```

As $\S 4$ discusses, traditional pitch-class inversion is realizable as a combination of scalar involution and some element of $\mathcal{P}_n$. We can demonstrate this for the dorian scale, as in Example 10:

```{r}
dorian <- c(0, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10)

sigma_6_0 <- ineqsym(card=7, a=6, b=0)
inversion <- -1 * sigma_6_0

inversion %*% coord_to_edo(dorian) |> coord_from_edo() |> t() |> as.numeric()
```

This simply returns the dorian scale, reflecting dorian's inversional symmetry about its tonic. We could apply this to achieve $T_0I$ of a set not fixed by that inversion. For instance, $T_0I$ should turn a C phrygian scale into C ionian:

```{r}
phrygian <- c(0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10)

inversion %*% coord_to_edo(phrygian) |> coord_from_edo() |> t() |> as.numeric()
```

Note that these examples both use `coord_to_edo()` and `coord_from_edo()` to switch between coordinate systems. Another option, which avoids changing coordinates, is to use `ineqsym()` and `saturate()` directly on a set. For instance, we can invert the `blues` scale (which is not inversionally symmetrical) as follows:

```{r, fig.width=5, fig.height=5, fig.fullwidth=TRUE}
#| fig.alt: >
#|   A so-called clockface diagram for the blues scale. A circle is labeled with
#|   twelve numbers, from 0 to 11, along its rim like an analog clock. The numbers that
#|   correspond to notes in the blues scale are circled.
inverted_blues <- ineqsym(blues, a=5, b=0) |> saturate(r=-1)
print(inverted_blues)

clockface(blues)
```

```{r, fig.width=5, fig.height=5, fig.fullwidth=TRUE}
#| fig.alt: >
#|   A clockface diagram for the inversion of the blues scale.
clockface(inverted_blues)
```

Of course, the point of this exercise is to prove that $T_nI$ transformations belong to a larger family of scalar transformations. If we simply want to invert a set in musicMCT, there is an easier way:

```{r}
tni(blues, 0)
```


We all know that some sets are inversionally symmetrical. It's more surprising to learn that a set can be *involutionally* symmetrical. One example is the "forza del destino" tetrachord $(0, 2, 3, 7)$:

```{r}
forza <- c(0, 2, 3, 7)
destino <- ineqsym(forza, a=1, b=2, involution=TRUE)
```

The symmetry applied above sets $a=1$, which does not permute generic intervals, and $b=2$ which will shift to a new mode of the set. It also sets `involution=TRUE`, taking the scalar involution of the `forza` tetrachord. What set does this produce?

```{r}
print(destino)

tn(forza, 3)
```

That is, $destino = T_3(forza)$! For this set, involution combines with a mode change to create a chromatic transposition.

As a consequence, the `forza` tetrachord can also be inverted without involution:

```{r}
ineqsym(forza, a=3, b=0, involution=FALSE)
tni(forza, 3)
```

From the perspective of classical pc-set theory, $(0, 2, 3, 7)$ seems pretty asymmetrical, so I think it's highly neat that it does turn out to have some symmetry.

## Looking for symmetries of a set

How does one discover something like $(0, 2, 3, 7)$'s symmetry? An easy way is to consider the size of a scale's orbit. If a scale's orbit is smaller than the order of $\mathcal{P}_n$, it must have some symmetry.

For instance, among tetrachords, $\mathcal{P}_4$ has 8 elements: four values corresponding to $a=1$ and four for $a=3$. The size of the orbit doubles to 16 if involution is included. Thus a tetrachord with no symmetries should have 16 "colors" in its "palette," as does the scale below:

```{r}
ait <- c(0, 1, 4, 6)

scale_palette(ait, include_involution=TRUE)
```

This result has 16 columns, representing 16 distinct scalar "colors," as expected.

By contrast, the `forza` tetrachord has only 8 scales in its orbit:

```{r}
scale_palette(forza, include_involution=TRUE)
```

For an example among hexachords, first recall from above that the `blues` scale (which has no symmetries under $\mathcal{P}_6$) has an orbit of size 24. Any scale with a smaller orbit must by symmetrical somehow. We'll consider the case of set class 6-Z44, to which the "Schoenberg signature" hexachord belongs:

```{r}
schbeg <- sc(6, 44)
scale_palette(schbeg) # Only 12 entries

isym(schbeg) # Not inversionally symmetrical
ineqsym(schbeg, a=5, b=0) # Is symmetrical under this transformation
```

This is a different kind of symmetry from that of `forza`: recall that `forza` was fixed by involution, whereas `schbeg` is fixed by $\sigma_{5, 0}$.

# Postscript on $M_5$ and $M_7$

This discussion may lead you to wonder whether our exploration of $\mathcal{P}_n$ hasn't simply been a roundabout rediscovery of the pitch-class multiplication operators $M_5$ and $M_7$. In a sense, those transformations *are* of interest here, because they belong to the symmetry group $\mathcal{P}_{12}$ of the hyperplane arrangement for 12-note scales. Typically, their use in music theory has been as operations that trivially fix the equally tempered chromatic scale (as the "center" of $\mathcal{M_{12}}$), letting us pay attention to what happens to its subsets. 

The perspective offered by the symmetry groups $\mathcal{P}_n$ is broader, since it applies directly to scale without treating it as a subset of a larger collection. For instance, the $T_nI$ equivalence class of $(0, 1, 4, 8)$ is fixed under $M_5$ and $M_7$, but transformations in $\mathcal{P}_4$ can turn it into a completely different set class:

```{r}
set <- c(0, 1, 4, 8)
fortenum(set)

(set * 5) %% 12 |> fortenum()
(set * 7) %% 12 |> fortenum()

set_image <- ineqsym(set, a=3, b=0)
print(set_image)
fortenum(set_image)
```

To get a sense of what $M_5$ means from this paper's perspective, realize that it can apply to any tuning of the 12-note chromatic scale, not just the equal-tempered one. For instance, we could define a tuning of a keyboard's 12 notes using 5-limit just intonation ratios:

```{r}
just_chromatic_scale <- j(1, m2, 2, m3, 3, 4, jtt, 5, m6, 6, m7, 7)
print(just_chromatic_scale)
```

Now we can apply $M_5$ to this—which in the language of "Symmetries" we could call the linear transformation induced by $\sigma_{5, 0}$:

```{r}
adjusted_chromatic_scale <- ineqsym(just_chromatic_scale, a=5, b=0)
print(adjusted_chromatic_scale)
```

We can see that these scales are different set classes by calculating their prime forms

```{r}
primeform(just_chromatic_scale)
primeform(adjusted_chromatic_scale)
```

or by evaluating their interval spectra:

```{r}
spectrumcount(just_chromatic_scale)
spectrumcount(adjusted_chromatic_scale)
```

This shows, for instance, that the `just_chromatic_scale` has four distinct sizes of semitone (i.e., four generic step sizes) whereas the `adjusted_chromatic_scale` has only three.

Isn't that something? It's easy to assume that $M_5$ and $M_7$ are intrinsically bound to the system of twelve-tone equal temperament. It's hard to imagine that they could have any meaning in a continuous pitch space. And yet, they do! 

Subsuming the $M$ transformations under $\mathcal{P}_{12}$ suggests that it's wrong to think of $M_5$ and $M_7$ as operating on pitch classes *per se*. That is, these operations are not actions applied to continuous pitch-class space directly (or a special subset of it), like transpositions $T_n$ are. Instead, they act on the *scale degrees* of the chromatic scale. That is, if we represent a set as $(x_0, x_1, \ldots, x_n)$, the $M$ operations act not on the values $x_i$ but on the indices $i$. It has been easy to confuse the two because, for the chromatic scale, $x_i = i$ given the way we measure specific intervals in terms of semitones.

---

**Last updated:** 10 May 2026