[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Numeral strings: we need your help!
- To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>
- Subject: Re: Numeral strings: we need your help!
- From: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 17:16:35 GMT
- In-Reply-To: <no.id>; from "Ivan A Derzhanski" at Jan 26, 92 2:43 pm
- Reply-To: CJ FINE <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!C.J.Fine>
- Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!LOJBAN>
Ivan Answers:
>
>
> I vote against {re pai} for `2 times pi'.
>
> Times dropping is just syntactic sugar adopted in traditional
> mathematical notation, a convention that doesn't have to hold in any
> other formalism, and indeed does not in any algorithmic language that
> I can think of. We just insert those asterisks.
>
> The argument that it is shorter isn't worth much. It is not in the
> spirit of Lojban to be concerned about brevity. I'd be more than
> happy to put a left bracket in front of `2 times pi people'. (Damned
> if I see why I would want to talk of them, though.)
>
> This is not to say that {re pai} shouldn't have a reasonable meaning.
> I think it should mean `20 plus pi', just as {re pa} means `20 plus 1'.
>
> I propose {ci ka'o vo} as the way to say `3+i4'. (I'm used to write
> "i" before the imaginary part anyway, so {ka'o} will translate
> directly to `plus i times'.
>
> Ivan
>
I agree completely
Colin
c,j,fine@bradford.ac.uk