From mark@kli.org Fri Sep 28 06:04:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: mark@kli.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 28 Sep 2001 13:04:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 18936 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2001 13:04:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2001 13:04:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n6.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.10.45) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Sep 2001 13:04:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: mark@kli.org Received: from [10.1.10.123] by hm.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Sep 2001 13:04:36 -0000 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:04:32 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: periodic hexadecimal reminder Message-ID: <9p1sh1+9sdi@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <20010927190954.B1323@twcny.rr.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2352 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 162.33.229.2 From: mark@kli.org X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11154 --- In lojban@y..., Rob Speer wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 06:02:34PM -0400, Craig wrote: > > No, you could use radix-1. Radix-1+1 = radix, and is always pano. Also, once > > you get to trying to say base 17 lojban has problems. > > Once you get to base 17, you have to use a different base to talk about the > digits _anyway_, so express the radix in that base. > > The only problem I see with bases 11-16 in Lojban is that there's no way (yet) > to abbreviate dau-vai, as the digits 0-9 abbreviate no-so. Though for base 12 > (if I remember the digits right) * could be 'dau' and # could be 'fei'. This > also provides names for these characters (daubu, feibu). But are there 4 > arbitrary characters left for the other digits? (Remember, A-F are taken.) {sorry if this is a duplicate} I don't understand the last question here. What other digits? In base-12, there are only 12 digits: 0123456789*#. Arbitrary characters for hex instead of C-F? Well, why mess with tradition? OK, to be fair, I'm not personally really happy with A-F, but that's pretty much irrelevant. A number is a string of PA words, not a string of symbols. If people choose to write {dau} as "A" when talking hexadecimal and "*" when talking dozenal (or even "~" in the little-known/nonexistent Undecimal Society's conventions), what do I care? If you're abbreviating lerfu/me'ovla with symbols in written Lojban, you're already taking things for granted. 0-9 are pretty well-accepted, but anything beyond that you have to assume the reader knows what symbology you're using (in which case it doesn't matter if it's inconsistent with others) or you have to tell the reader explicitly (in which case it also doesn't matter). What I mean is, Lojban is/should be silent on this, as it touches on conventions that don't concern it: the only *official* symbol for {dau} in Lojban is {dau}. Similarly, if you're in some strange situation where you're talking about hex *digits* (as symbols), it would be correct to use {daubu} for hex A and not .abu. But unless you're among dyed-in-the-wool dozenalists (and modern ones at that: dau is also written as X in duodecimal), using {daubu} for "*" outside of duodecimal context would be as reasonable as using {daubu} for "A" outside of hexadecimal context. ~mark