From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Aug 22 01:27:38 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 22 Aug 2005 05:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52)
	id 1E77ec-0006kn-D5
	for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:27:38 -0700
Received: from mailgw5.gedas.de ([139.1.44.13])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52)
	id 1E77eZ-0006kf-S8
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:27:38 -0700
Received: from mailgw5.gedas.de (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by mailgw5.gedas.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j7M8RXlI013258
	for <lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org>; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:27:33 +0200
Received: from GDDEBESAPP004.de.gedas-grp (gddebesapp004.de.gedas-grp [10.242.64.42])
	by mailgw5.gedas.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j7M8RXDD013252
	for <lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org>; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:27:33 +0200
Received: from blnsem08.de.gedas-grp ([139.1.84.54]) by GDDEBESAPP004.de.gedas-grp with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830);
	 Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:27:33 +0200
Received: by blnsem08.de.gedas-grp with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
	id <Q02J1Q6B>; Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:27:32 +0200
Message-ID: <A48849B31C98424CBB31A5E6C7D091E60230C85F@wobsem03.de.gedas-grp>
From: "Newton, Philip" <Philip.Newton@gedas-onsite.de>
To: "'lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org'"
	 <lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: [SPAM Verdacht] - Re: Why 16 - Bayesian Fi
	lter detected spam
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:27:28 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Aug 2005 08:27:33.0069 (UTC) FILETIME=[57D3CFD0:01C5A6F3]
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 1805
X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-original-sender: Philip.Newton@gedas-onsite.de
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

la snan cu cusku di'e
> Speaking in hexadecimal with only ten numerals is annoying since
> there'd be ambiguity between B5 {papa mu} and 1F {pa pamu}, so we
> need at least sixteen.

I see no ambiguity; {papa mu}, {pa pamu}, {papamu}, and {pa pa mu} all
unambiguously mean "115".

If you want to speak in hexadecimal with only ten numerals, use {pi'e}, just
as you'd need to use, say, base-20 or base-60 or even other geeky pursuits
such as base-64.

You'd then have {papa pi'e mu} vs {pa pi'e pamu}.

> As few as possible + at least sixteen -> sixteen.

You still haven't given any reason for "at least sixteen" (as opposed to,
say, "at least twenty").

My guess is that the originators were mathematical/comp.sci geeks and wanted
to be able to speak hexadecimal without recourse to {pi'e}.

mu'o mi'e .filip.