## synch siteswap causal diagram

Showing 1-8 of 8 messages
 synch siteswap causal diagram nopoetsplease 5/15/12 7:44 PM fair play, i'm double posting this: r.j and on jugglingedge. i can't quite get my head around how to draw causal diagrams for synch siteswaps. in vanilla siteswaps, the dots representing the "hands" are isometric/staggered to show the alternating throws. in synch, are the dots lined up? also, if i'm drawing the path of the 6x in a (6x 4)*, obviously projecting the path six places will land it on the same hand. do you draw the path to the seventh place or the 5th? or am i missing the point entirely? thanks, -alex -- ----== posted via www.jugglingdb.com ==---- Re: synch siteswap causal diagram Vertigo 5/15/12 10:17 PM Yep, the dots are lined up in synch. A 6x should go 3 spaces forwards, and to the opposite hand.   (And, in general, an n-ball-height throw should go (n/2) spaces forwards, and to the opposite hand if it's a crossing throw) You'll notice when juggling 6x,4 that the 6x is thrown again 3 "beats" later.  So yes, in synch it is no longer true that a throw's siteswap number represents how many beats later it's thrown again.  This is the tradeoff we make in exchange for maintaining the fact that a 6 in synch is the same height of throw as a 6 in asynch. Re: synch siteswap causal diagram Miika 5/15/12 10:32 PM nopoetsplease wrote: > fair play, i'm double posting this: r.j and on jugglingedge. > > i can't quite get my head around how to draw causal diagrams for synch > siteswaps. > > in vanilla siteswaps, the dots representing the "hands" are > isometric/staggered to show the alternating throws. in synch, are the dots > lined up? > > also, if i'm drawing the path of the 6x in a (6x 4)*, obviously projecting > the path six places will land it on the same hand. do you draw the path to > the seventh place or the 5th? or am i missing the point entirely? >  The dots line up in synch.  In a ladder diagram, you draw paths for all the objects and a 6x will land three pairs of dots forward on the other side. (Dwell times are ignored so it leaves the hand immediately.)  In a causal diagram the paths don't indicate objects, but the reason or cause those hands need to be emptied. This is basically a ladder diagram with all the arrows arriving as many beats earlier, as there are hands used in the pattern. Causal diagrams are most often used with passing patterns.  A quick comparison of these two different diagrams for (6x,4)*: http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=tz4hnxv37nvh69a -Miika -- Siteswaps of the day: 6 , (6,6) , (6x,6x) Re: synch siteswap causal diagram ^Tom_ 5/16/12 4:38 AM Vertigo wrote: > You'll notice when juggling 6x,4 that the 6x is thrown again 3 "beats" > later.  So yes, in synch it is no longer true that a throw's siteswap > number represents how many beats later it's thrown again.  This is the > tradeoff we make in exchange for maintaining the fact that a 6 in synch is > the same height of throw as a 6 in asynch. Or, by treating the 2 simultaneous throws as 2 events rather than 1 event of 2, it sort of still makes sense - as the 6x will be thrown again at the time of the 6th (and seventh). 0 -- 2 -- 4 -- 6 1 -- 3 -- 5 -- 7 or 0 -- 2 -- 4 -- 6 0a--2a--4a--6a is essentially what you're doing, but you're now using only the top line of numbers when dealing with timing. 0 -- 2 -- 4 -- 6 - 1 -- 3 -- 5 - Would also work, as siteswap doesn't say that the beats have to be in order, you can imagine stretching an asynch siteswap's beats towards a synchronous one such as: changing 0 -------- 2 -------- 4 -------- 6 ---- 1 -------- 3 -------- 5 ---- to 0 -------- 2 -------- 4 --------6 -1 -------- 3 -------- 5 -------- 7 Using this method of writing the pattern, something like (4,4) would become 4. but if you wanted to throw a (4x,4x), it would now be a (5,3), but due to the distortion of the beats, a "(5" is the same height as a 4 and a "3)" is the same height as a 4 from the other hand. Using a slightly different method, you could probably write (6x,4)* as 726 if you wanted to write it as an asynch siteswap. I have a few issues with synchronous siteswaps, in that they degeneralize siteswap from being a hand-agnostic order of throws to being 2 handed in nature... but otherwise, they're just as simple as siteswap, but the "odd" hand is now even too, so you end up with 2 beats called 0, 2, 4 etc. hope this helps (NB - i'd advise using a fixed width font to read this ;) - or copy/paste to something like notepad) ^_ Re: synch siteswap causal diagram ^Tom_ 5/16/12 9:13 AM The 4th paragraph in part 8 of Allen Knutson's Siteswap FAQ v2 explains my problem with synchronous siteswap. It's not a big problem, and I fully understand the reason for it, it's just not very elegant. http://www.juggling.org/help/siteswap/faq.html#gen Re: synch siteswap causal diagram Miika 5/24/12 1:32 AM I'm trying to understand why synch siteswaps might feel like a bad system. To me, something like naming a vanilla siteswap and then separately telling the correct timing is far inferior. (Different ways of doing this have been suggested, and I guess it can have it's uses in patterns with more complex rhythms.) Your example of calling (4x,4x) as 53 with altered rhythm (one hand throws everything a beat too early) works but it doesn't illustrate the pattern nearly as well. Using (4x,4x) clearly shows it to be a symmetric pattern at first glance, it indicates the pattern being synchronous, and the relative heights of the throws are similar to that of someone juggling an asynch fountain with four. With the other way, there is room for confusion on which hand is throwing too early, which results in more than one way to notate the same pattern, like (6x,4)(6,4x) derived from both 7463 and 6455 , and 53 could also mean (6x,2x) . Of course this can be worked around, but if for instance you are making a list of all the patterns, this is a large issue.  I can't help but feel the statement you reference as being very old-fashioned, or even close-minded in a way:   This [synchronous notation] no longer really quite fits in with "The  Siteswap Idea" that a throw be labeled by one plus the number of throws  while it's in the air - shouldn't we just be calling those things 1's  and 2's instead of 2's and 4's? Basically, mathematically, the answer is  yes. But this doubling of all the numbers in "synchronous siteswap" is  by now pretty standard, because it gives the proper indication of the  relative heights of the throws. For example, most people asynchronously  fountain 2N balls at the same height as they synchronously fountain 2N,  so it would be a little weird calling the throws 2N's in vanilla siteswap  and N's in synchronous siteswap. Also, the averaging theorem is still  true only if you double the numbers.  Having extra beats in between the synch throws relates nicely to asynch patterns. If you want to show what happens on those beats, you can use something like (4x,4x)!(0,0)! or even <2p|2p> and explain that your hands are the passing partners. For me synchronous siteswaps are a very natural way to extend the siteswap idea into something a little different.  As for the averaging theorem, it would still hold, even if we didn't double the numbers. Of course it needs to be explained how to use it in such a pattern (or multiplex, or passing etc.) but this applies to any formula in any system that you want to expand to include some other system as well! In any case the argument for doubled numbers comes down to it being practical, not just theoretically sound.  Of course this thread started about causal diagrams, easily confused with ladder diagrams. Not much to say about those right now, but they look good on the Juggling Edge!  Just thinking, -Miika -- btw, tämä on toinen viestini tältä sivustolta -- ----== posted via www.JuggleJunction.org ==---- Re: synch siteswap causal diagram ^Tom_ 5/24/12 5:42 AM Just to make this unambiguously clear, I accept and use (,) synch siteswaps. I just have some issues with them. As I explained, Allen Knutson explained on my other post which contextualized my post, and even your post pointed out - they have their oddities. Mainly, they diverge from the original point of siteswap - not a lot, but they do. Normal siteswap arithmetic (states, swapping sites) do not work. They add implied non-existent beats just so that people like you - most people - think they're more normal. I would prefer that 2 in one hand were called 2, or (2,0), but I know that convention is too well established now - so I'm only preaching to those with interest in siteswap theory. I like the fact that siteswap (or at least the numbers in it) doesn't know or care how many hands are at work. It's simply an ordering system. You talk about heights, but it's nothing to do with heights [siteswap has nothing to do with heights]. It's the same argument as 4 handed siteswaps for passing patterns. A) apply the vanilla principles about number of hands that throw until object is thrown again vs B) treat everything in a directly analogous way to solo asynch juggling, because jugglers know what height a 4 is. Both have merits, but I know which one I prefer. I don't accept that the argument about height is correct - but I get the idea makes some sense. I favour the more mathematically correct one, not the one that most jugglers would just "get"[1]. And, yes, as you say, the original discussion was about causal diagrams, easily confusable with ladder diagrams. Or, as I suspect, it was a question about ladder diagrams, easily confused with causal diagrams. (And I think the original question has been answered - here by you and on the edge by me.) ^_ -- 1 - I've heard lectures, read papers, heard people explaining, giving workshops etc about siteswap where they describe a 4 as "the same sort of throw as when doing 4 balls". This isn't the same as, and is what I'm sure is a much better definition, "a throw which is thrown again 4 beats later". But then again, when teaching the basics, the difference is subtle, and the former explanation is clearer -- ----== posted via www.jugglehub.com ==---- Re: synch siteswap causal diagram Aidan 5/24/12 3:48 PM I have a slightly different take on synch siteswaps. If you think of a beat as a moment when you can throw or catch a ball, then the 6 is thrown 6 beats later. Aidan.