From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Feb 18 21:30:04 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:30:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JRL3K-0005aY-Fj for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:30:04 -0800 Received: from web62510.mail.re1.yahoo.com ([69.147.75.102]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JRL37-0005ZB-QP for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:30:01 -0800 Received: (qmail 67234 invoked by uid 60001); 19 Feb 2008 05:29:43 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=TkRLMzP7OajolgQa05x71TT8EgBlFKWn87d2lpmui1bs3gjBdt7AUUuP86zDyO1O0iKQ377xbK9zQNCwOVctXOId78sM2D9mpI2XRQMG8CoTNKCh/awUzBsjWF5/wAfKM14+eCHVk3ijmlQsM02R4Z0IXdl7ETTcfPaMDm3OMoQ=; X-YMail-OSG: EPrfEzwVM1lyjGhf7kHd0rk_oyiQue8ELCffv403sEH7KOS4Ud77UuprQBcrHe3XhHUsTSWL3TI0xT.Yj7ITxWDhJyxKXbeL55jUyOILez3uGGn9mGUbx3zJJgJj0A-- Received: from [63.24.93.24] by web62510.mail.re1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:29:42 PST Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:29:42 -0800 (PST) From: Liam Dalton Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Nth root of unity To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <200802172028.20159.phma@phma.optus.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1877598071-1203398982=:65810" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-ID: <6887.65810.qm@web62510.mail.re1.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 358 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: iamdalto@yahoo.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --0-1877598071-1203398982=:65810 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sorry for my absence, a "two-kind-of dimension-kind-of number" as a definition for "complex number"? Perhaps it ought to capture some of it's peculiar multiplicative properties, but then again, maybe not. lujna'u certainly is Not Apt, though, and is malglico. I believe that the lojban number system in lojban has a cmavo for imaginary number: perhaps by implementing it (ka'o) into the lujvo, it would be less ambiguous, because relcimdyna'u also could imply a square measure (i.e., square meter, square light-year, ect.) Maybe ka'orelcimdyna'u, or is that too unweildly? I mean, I can see a math professor saying, "...poi ka'orelcim...ka'orel...oiro'a" Perhaps I am forgetting a precept against jamming cmavo into lujvo. Am I? a@phma.optus.nu> wrote: On Sunday 17 February 2008 15:43, David Cortesi wrote: > per jbovlaste, complex number is {lujna'u} i.e. {pluja namcu}, a > complicated type of number -- not pleasing to me, since it is more a > two-dimensional number than one that is {pluja}. Someone's suggested {relcimdyna'u}, which goes well with {voncimdyna'u} for "quaternion". Pierre --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. --0-1877598071-1203398982=:65810 Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sorry for my absence,
 
a "two-kind-of dimension-kind-of number" as a definition for "complex number"?
Perhaps it ought to capture some of it's peculiar multiplicative properties, but then again, maybe not. lujna'u certainly is Not Apt, though, and is malglico.
 
I believe that the lojban number system in lojban has a cmavo for imaginary number: perhaps by implementing it (ka'o) into the lujvo, it would be less ambiguous, because relcimdyna'u also could imply a square measure (i.e., square meter, square light-year, ect.)
 
Maybe ka'orelcimdyna'u, or is that too unweildly? I mean, I can see a math professor saying, "...poi ka'orelcim...ka'orel...oiro'a"
 
Perhaps I am forgetting a precept against jamming cmavo into lujvo. Am I?

a@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
On Sunday 17 February 2008 15:43, David Cortesi wrote:
> per jbovlaste, complex number is {lujna'u} i.e. {pluja namcu}, a
> complicated type of number -- not pleasing to me, since it is more a
> two-dimensional number than one that is {pluja}.

Someone's suggested {relcimdyna'u}, which goes well with {voncimdyna'u}
for "quaternion".

Pierre




Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. --0-1877598071-1203398982=:65810--