Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP id AA10988; Mon, 27 Jan 92 17:21:10 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA06927; Mon, 27 Jan 92 17:00:30 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (via uunet.UU.NET) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA13132; Mon, 27 Jan 92 16:50:03 -0500 Message-Id: <9201272150.AA13132@relay2.UU.NET> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 5289; Mon, 27 Jan 92 16:48:28 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 1359; Mon, 27 Jan 92 16:47:41 EST Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1992 16:46:19 Reply-To: David Cortesi Sender: Lojban list Comments: Warning -- original Sender: tag was cortesi@CRICKHOLLOW.INFORMIX.COM From: David Cortesi Subject: numeral strings X-To: lojban mailing list To: John Cowan Status: RO I cast a vote opposing implicit multiplication in numeral strings. I go for repai = 2*10 + 3.14159... The interpretation should be same as reso'i which I assume means 2*10 + many, that is, something between 25 and 29. (There is a way to switch radix, yes? so that with the appropriate previx (bi ju'u?), repai would mean 2*8 + pi, etc) On the side issue of notation for complex numbers, I dislike the idea of implicit multiplication by ka'o just as much as the implicit multiplication by pai. Ivan suggests writing ka'o as a prefix, but unless its meaning also changes, that only introduces confusion as to what it is multiplied against. What is needed is a cmavo that delimits the "real" from the "imaginary" part of a two-dimensional number, the role of the comma in (3,4) as a point in the plane. Is it not correct that this interpretation of a complex number is more general than the interpretation of 3+4i? If it was convenient to speak two-dimensioned numbers as syntactic tuples, there would not be any desire to make a special case of ka'o. Such a "comma" word should bind tightly (be a short-scope grouper like bo) so that parentheses would not be needed to speak a complex literal as a sumti. Perhaps this mechanism already exists...?