Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Mon, 1 Jun 92 12:58 EDT Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA01505; Mon, 1 Jun 92 12:09:17 EDT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA08984; Mon, 1 Jun 92 09:55:12 -0400 Message-Id: <9206011355.AA08984@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8135; Mon, 01 Jun 92 09:31:05 EDT Received: by UGA (Mailer R2.07) id 7945; Mon, 01 Jun 92 09:30:41 EDT Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 09:29:34 -0400 Reply-To: "Mark E. Shoulson" Sender: Lojban list From: "Mark E. Shoulson" Subject: Phone game: Gleem X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann In-Reply-To: CJ FINE's message of Fri, 29 May 1992 14:50:37 BST Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Mon Jun 1 12:58:38 1992 X-From-Space-Address: cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN >Date: Fri, 29 May 1992 14:50:37 BST >From: CJ FINE >> Why? As I understand it, since (mathematically) 9/10 = .9, >> {sofi'upano} means exactly the same thing(s) as {piso}. Nowhere does >> it say that one type of fraction may be less precise than the other. >NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!! >This is elementary metrology. In arithmetic, 9/10 = .9, >but in physics, or applied maths, or the real world, they are not the >same, because they imply different standards of accuracy. As I said in >an earlier mail, all measurements (and hence all numbers used as >quantifiers) have an express or implied accuracy. If Lojban is not to >reproduce the scientific implications of using decimal and vulgar >fractions, then we must state explicitly what accuracy is to be applied, >and will need to use my "accuracy" operator a lot more. Um, I'm sorry, but I've never seen .9 used to mean anything other than 9/10 (barring cases of different bases, of course). I'm fairly sure it's not through lack of exposure; I was a physics major for two years (before changing to computer science) as an undergrad, and did a concentration in mathematics, studying both applied and theoretical. (I'm not trying to wave credentials at you; I just don't want to be accused of not having taken any coursework in the topic under discussion). I suppose I could see someone saying "point nine" when he really means "roughly point nine", but imprecision is not implicit at all in the fact that he chooses to use a radix point rather than a fraction, nor vice-versa. I'd rather see your "accuracy" operator everywhere than be told that .9 != 9/10 ~mark