# Talk:BPFK Section: Digits

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Posted by pycyn on Fri 06 of Aug., 2004 21:14 GMT posts: 2388 {dau} and {fei} can also be used for duodecimal notation, just as 0-7 can be used in octal and so on. Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

```Edit  Delete  Report this post
```

Re: BPFK Section: Digits

Posted by xorxes on Mon 04 of June, 2007 19:30 GMT posts: 1912

"cacra li revo .a li pare" "It lasts for 12 or 24 hours."

I suggest using the same order for the numbers in Lojban and in English.

".i mi citka renono mikrygrake be le xukmi" "I ate 200 µg of the chemical."

Shouldn't the place structure of "mikrygrake" be "x1 is x2 micrograms by standard x3"?

"Number strings are in base 10 (ten), unless overridden grammatically."

We can say that numbers are usually in base 10, and that there are means to specify otherwise, but what any number string represents in any given context does not seem to be something that can be dictated by the BPFK.

For example, say you are given the list of numbers: 12F3, AAC5, FFFF, 3312, B122. Are you really going to interpret "3312" as a decimal number?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

```Edit  Delete  Report this post
```

BPFK Section: Digits

arj Posted by arj on Mon 04 of June, 2007 20:05 GMT posts: 953 On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:31:00PM -0700, xorxes wrote: > > Re: BPFK Section: Digits > > Author: xorxes > > > "cacra li revo .a li pare" > "It lasts for 12 or 24 hours." > > I suggest using the same order for the numbers in Lojban > and in English.

Okay.

> > ".i mi citka renono mikrygrake be le xukmi" > "I ate 200 µg of the chemical." > > Shouldn't the place structure of "mikrygrake" be > "x1 is x2 micrograms by standard x3"?

You are absolutely right.

I removed the example.

> "Number strings are in base 10 (ten), unless overridden grammatically." > > We can say that numbers are usually in base 10, and that there are means to specify otherwise, but what any number string represents in any given context does not seem to be something that can be dictated by the BPFK. > > For example, say you are given the list of numbers: 12F3, AAC5, FFFF, 3312, B122. Are you really going to interpret "3312" as a decimal number?

Suppose that "3312" came in isolation. Would one really interpret it as anything but a decimal number?

Perhaps I am living under the delusion that mathematical expressions, if nothing else, should be unambiguous. I have a profound sense of repulsion at the idea of not being able to, mechanically, determine if a string of digits refer to 3312 or 13074.

-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ "This is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put!" --attributed to Winston Churchill

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

```Edit  Delete  Report this post
```

BPFK Section: Digits

rlpowell Posted by rlpowell on Mon 04 of June, 2007 20:45 GMT posts: 14214 On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:06:45PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:31:00PM -0700, xorxes wrote: > > "Number strings are in base 10 (ten), unless overridden > > grammatically." > > > > We can say that numbers are usually in base 10, and that there > > are means to specify otherwise, but what any number string > > represents in any given context does not seem to be something > > that can be dictated by the BPFK. > > > > For example, say you are given the list of numbers: 12F3, AAC5, > > FFFF, 3312, B122. Are you really going to interpret "3312" as a > > decimal number? > > Suppose that "3312" came in isolation. Would one really interpret > it as anything but a decimal number? > > Perhaps I am living under the delusion that mathematical > expressions, if nothing else, should be unambiguous. I have a > profound sense of repulsion at the idea of not being able to, > mechanically, determine if a string of digits refer to 3312 or > 13074.

Number strings are in base 10 (ten), unless overridden grammatically. Context may, of course, override this default, but you risk being misunderstood if you rely on context in this fashion.

-Robin

-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

```Edit  Delete  Report this post
```

BPFK Section: Digits

Posted by Anonymous on Mon 04 of June, 2007 20:57 GMT On 6/4/07, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > Suppose that "3312" came in isolation. Would one really interpret > it as anything but a decimal number?

In complete isolation, it's just a string of symbols. If we know that it's a number, then yes, decimal would be the obvious first guess.

> Perhaps I am living under the delusion that mathematical expressions, > if nothing else, should be unambiguous.

In general or in Lojban? In general mathematical expressions are not context independent. It's hard to see how the fact that one is using Lojban could change that. Given a mathematical expression, it can normally be read in any language.

> I have a profound sense of repulsion at the idea of not being able > to, mechanically, determine if a string of digits refer to 3312 or 13074.

The string "3312" could ba a postal code, a house number, and many other things. Without any context we can't really tell that it's a decimal number.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

```Edit  Delete  Report this post
```

BPFK Section: Digits

arj Posted by arj on Tue 05 of June, 2007 22:34 GMT posts: 953 On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:45:37PM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 10:06:45PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 12:31:00PM -0700, xorxes wrote: > > > "Number strings are in base 10 (ten), unless overridden > > > grammatically." > > > > > > We can say that numbers are usually in base 10, and that there > > > are means to specify otherwise, but what any number string > > > represents in any given context does not seem to be something > > > that can be dictated by the BPFK. > > > > > > For example, say you are given the list of numbers: 12F3, AAC5, > > > FFFF, 3312, B122. Are you really going to interpret "3312" as a > > > decimal number? > > > > Suppose that "3312" came in isolation. Would one really interpret > > it as anything but a decimal number? > > > > Perhaps I am living under the delusion that mathematical > > expressions, if nothing else, should be unambiguous. I have a > > profound sense of repulsion at the idea of not being able to, > > mechanically, determine if a string of digits refer to 3312 or > > 13074. > > Number strings are in base 10 (ten), unless overridden > grammatically. Context may, of course, override this default, > but you risk being misunderstood if you rely on context in this > fashion.

Since both of you appear to want to keep the context-dependence, I'll put it back in.

The best thing would be to have *both* context-independence, and sane behaviour with lists of digit strings. One way to do that would be to use a sticky base flag. Is that a bad idea?

-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Taboos abound in almost any aspect of Tuvan life. ... To name an example: the introduction of the Latin alphabet in 1930 was also believed to impose a threat on the health of women expecting a child. — Mark C. van Tongeren: Overtone Singing

Score: 0.00 Vote: 1 2 3 4 5 top of page Reply

```Edit  Delete  Report this post
```

BPFK Section: Digits

Posted by PierreAbbat on Wed 06 of June, 2007 03:46 GMT posts: 324 On Tuesday 05 June 2007 18:35, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > The best thing would be to have *both* context-independence, and sane > behaviour with lists of digit strings. One way to do that would be to use a > sticky base flag. Is that a bad idea?

If you mean something like {ki} but for numbers instead of tenses, I think it's a good idea.

Pierre