Phone game: Gleem

["Mark E. Shoulson" <cbmvax!uunet!ctr.columbia.edu!shoulson>]

>Date:         Fri, 29 May 1992 14:50:37 BST
>From: CJ FINE <C.J.Fine%BRADFORD.AC.UK@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>

>> Why?  As I understand it, since (mathematically) 9/10 = .9,
>> {sofi'upano} means exactly the same thing(s) as {piso}.  Nowhere does
>> it say that one type of fraction may be less precise than the other.

>NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!
>This is elementary metrology. In arithmetic, 9/10 = .9,
>but in physics, or applied maths, or the real world, they are not the
>same, because they imply different standards of accuracy. As I said in
>an earlier mail, all measurements (and hence all numbers used as
>quantifiers) have an express or implied accuracy. If Lojban is not to
>reproduce the scientific implications of using decimal and vulgar
>fractions, then we must state explicitly what accuracy is to be applied,
>and will need to use my "accuracy" operator a lot more.

Um, I'm sorry, but I've never seen .9 used to mean anything other than 9/10
(barring cases of different bases, of course).  I'm fairly sure it's not
through lack of exposure; I was a physics major for two years (before
changing to computer science) as an undergrad, and did a concentration in
mathematics, studying both applied and theoretical.  (I'm not trying to
wave credentials at you; I just don't want to be accused of not having
taken any coursework in the topic under discussion).  I suppose I could see
someone saying "point nine" when he really means "roughly point nine", but
imprecision is not implicit at all in the fact that he chooses to use a
radix point rather than a fraction, nor vice-versa.  I'd rather see your
"accuracy" operator everywhere than be told that .9 != 9/10

~mark