From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMB.BITNET!LOJBAN Tue Jun 16 16:31:08 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Tue, 16 Jun 92 16:31 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA18268; Tue, 16 Jun 92 16:12:23 EDT Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA18685; Tue, 16 Jun 92 16:00:21 -0400 Message-Id: <9206162000.AA18685@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2961; Tue, 16 Jun 92 15:44:46 EDT Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf027) id 5310; Tue, 16 Jun 92 15:42:50 EDT Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1992 13:18:29 EDT Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list From: John Cowan Subject: Metrology and exact/approximate numbers X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO X-Status: Earlier this month there was much talk about whether 0.9 is equal to 9/10 or not, and what the significance of Lojban numbers is when measurements are involved. Here's my current position on the matter, on which I solicit comments: 9/10 (sofi'upano) has the same value as .9 (piso), because both are exact numbers. We do have the cmavo "ji'i", which has the same grammar as a digit, and is used to indicate approximation. Current examples are ji'i vo no approximately four zero about forty re pi ze re ji'u ma'u two point seven two approximately positive-sign 2.72 (rounded up) re pi ze pa ji'i ni'u two point seven one approximately negative-sign 2.71 (rounded down) Based on these examples, it seems to me that if we want to say "3.1418" and indicate that the last digit is an approximation (in other words, our measurements are only accurate to .001 precision), we can say: ci pi pa vo pa ji'i bi three point one four one approximately eight Comments? -- cowan@snark.thyrsus.com ...!uunet!cbmvax!snark!cowan e'osai ko sarji la lojban