From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Nov 24 18:33:17 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:33:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ND7gy-0002jS-Mu for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:33:17 -0800 Received: from mail-ew0-f224.google.com ([209.85.219.224]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ND7gs-0002iT-IJ for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:33:16 -0800 Received: by ewy24 with SMTP id 24so4043315ewy.26 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:33:04 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=mEpdKA1jnxRWccUsmqiOIRrC5U9R8NiOunquJ6dNqzU=; b=S4s8Js95oxk4nV12zdByeo8IZjN8eWBnJQ8OoJol52Kz0P1uQAbrLjkgO38/Zdz9KK rdRCcWQJJoMLojyiBY9aHxuwrBy45e3wUIMaN+9n3cHcBcWZESvixkFccnHwtacmnRkC fgx9ZaEc+qULS+IYrRi5n08dwwqxnCeobaVYk= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=k7uqPQEP1lwgyyxaISEa45Ye7yz0TXx2G1ZtEAq890rTZ7gS9xx4BZSp9WJCsYaA4U Q8z9BVdiVHaq/HklihmAp7wxCY8ZyHbqX3YhGPLhhJLzqih/z0hNsGeftjS65iCWpzgc CCYqzugBcGqapFGqt3tSusHdUwMILACmAzwi4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.213.0.198 with SMTP id 6mr5856131ebc.84.1259116376298; Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:32:56 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20091124212215.GA13289@sdf.lonestar.org> References: <4b674e5b0911241210h66002baem43a8c62bb34c3d65@mail.gmail.com> <20091124212215.GA13289@sdf.lonestar.org> Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:32:56 -0500 Message-ID: <4b674e5b0911241832r47a234adn48c7f2e4e76f5cee@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Hexadecimal numbers From: Cal Stepanian To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce03bce57151a047928e090 X-archive-position: 2582 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ziphilt@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --000e0ce03bce57151a047928e090 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Okay then, that makes sense. This is of course a huge improvement over English or French numbering systems (from personal experience!), but I can't help but feel weird when I switch from the "consonant, pure vowel" decimal numbers to the "consonant, diphthong" hexadecimal numbers. On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Minimiscience wrote: > de'i li 24 pi'e 11 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Cal Stepanian .fy. cusku zoi > skamyxatra. > > According to this part of Lojban For Beginners, > > http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/lessons/less5days.html > > hexadecimal digits haven't been assigned rafsi. Is this a temporary > problem, > > or is this what the designers intended? > .skamyxatra > > Neither (unless your definition of "temporary" includes "until snowmen are > running GNU HURD in Hell"). As far as I can tell, they simply ran out of > {rafsi} for the hexadecimal digits, which were comparatively low on the > "likely > to be used in {lujvo}" scale. The direct {rafsi} equivalents of the hex > digits > are already assigned to "{darlu}," "{fepni}," "{gacri}," "{djacu}," > "{preti}," > and "{vajni}," respectively, and the available {rafsi} that can be formed > by > changing the last letters of the digits are scarce and not intuitively > associated with them. > > > I want to use base sixteen eventually for most everything, because it > would > > be so much simpler to convert to and from binary that way > > You don't need {rafsi} for that; a multi-digit number is formed by simply > listing the {cmavo} for the digits. The {rafsi} are only needed when > making > {lujvo} out of words, and I can't think of any instances in which you would > want to do that with hexadecimal digits. > > mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun. > > -- > lo paroi cumki cu rere'u cumki > > > > --000e0ce03bce57151a047928e090 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Okay then, that makes sense. This is of course a huge improvement over Engl= ish or French numbering systems (from personal experience!), but I can'= t help but feel weird when I switch from the "consonant, pure vowel&qu= ot; decimal numbers to the "consonant, diphthong" hexadecimal num= bers.

On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 4:22 PM, Minimiscien= ce <minimis= cience@gmail.com> wrote:
de'i li 24 pi'e 11 pi'e 2009 la'o fy. Cal Stepanian .fy. cu= sku zoi skamyxatra.
> According to this part of Lojban For Beginners,
> http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbro= chure/lessons/less5days.html
> hexadecimal digits haven't been assigned rafsi. Is this a temporar= y problem,
> or is this what the designers intended?
.skamyxatra

Neither (unless your definition of "temporary" includes "unt= il snowmen are
running GNU HURD in Hell"). =A0As far as I can tell, they simply ran o= ut of
{rafsi} for the hexadecimal digits, which were comparatively low on the &qu= ot;likely
to be used in {lujvo}" scale. =A0The direct {rafsi} equivalents of the= hex digits
are already assigned to "{darlu}," "{fepni}," "{ga= cri}," "{djacu}," "{preti},"
and "{vajni}," respectively, and the available {rafsi} that can b= e formed by
changing the last letters of the digits are scarce and not intuitively
associated with them.

> I want to use base sixteen eventually for most everything, because it = would
> be so much simpler to convert to and from binary that way

You don't need {rafsi} for that; a multi-digit number is formed b= y simply
listing the {cmavo} for the digits. =A0The {rafsi} are only needed when mak= ing
{lujvo} out of words, and I can't think of any instances in which you w= ould
want to do that with hexadecimal digits.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

--
lo paroi cumki cu rere'u cumki




--000e0ce03bce57151a047928e090--