Return-Path: Message-Id: <9205300935.AA15283@relay1.UU.NET> Date: Sat May 30 10:30:08 1992 Reply-To: Ivan A Derzhanski Sender: Lojban list From: Ivan A Derzhanski Subject: Phone game: Gleem To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: Major's message of Sat, 30 May 1992 18:12:55 +1000 <18057.9205300815@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Sat May 30 10:30:08 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN > Date: Sat, 30 May 1992 18:12:55 +1000 > From: Major > > Ivan A Derzhanski writes: > > > I've never thought > > of ".9" as being in any way different from "1/9". > > Ignoring the typo and assuming you mean "9/10" not "1/9": Yes, sorry about that. I meant that ".9" was in no way different from "9/10". > Do you also see "1/3" as equal to .3 or is it .33 or .3333 etc ? It is not equal to any of them, but it is certainly equal to .(3) (threes all the way down). [Colin:] > > > As I said in > > > an earlier mail, all measurements (and hence all numbers used as > > > quantifiers) have an express or implied accuracy. [Ivan:] > > Not unless John's mex paper says so, and I think it doesn't. > > Kolin was talking about the numbers, not their lojban representation. Yes, and since the numbers as such are equal, the accuracy attached to them has to be equal as well. > John's paper has no effect on the numbers any more than the gismu list > changes the color space by defining (or failing to define) color words. By defining or failing to define colour words, the gismu list determines the way the continuous colour space is divided into individual colours, and hence the range of colour values (wave lengths) covered by each of these words. Ivan