From thinkit8@lycos.com Tue Oct 02 07:16:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 2 Oct 2001 14:16:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 24654 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 14:16:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Oct 2001 14:16:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n8.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.10.47) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 14:16:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: thinkit8@lycos.com Received: from [10.1.10.69] by n8.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 02 Oct 2001 14:16:37 -0000 Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 14:16:32 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: bases [was: Re: [lojban] Re:HEX advert... (Don't know what it was) Message-ID: <9pci80+pbh7@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <9pa8cd+ekqt@eGroups.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2068 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.4.255.70 From: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11280 --- In lojban@y..., mark@k... wrote: > --- In lojban@y..., "michael helsem" wrote: > > >From: mark@k... > > li'o > > >Now, does this really matter all that much in Lojban? After all, > we > > >have ra'e for repeating digits, and we even have fi'u for explicit > > >fractions > > > > it seems to me not at all un-lobykai, that although there is a > default > > base of ten, other bases are simple to implement & indeed already > being > > used by some of us. base-pluralism like many another pluralism is > only > > unthinkable to the unsophisticated mind. > > To be sure, base pluralism is definitely lobykai; indeed, that's why > God created {dau-vai} and {ju'u} in the first place. Truth be told, > it's sort of a shame that there's no really easy way to go beyond > base-16 for situations that so demand (I take it back. That's a > wonderful place for nonce use of experimental cmavo. Defined and > used within the document in question, with no precedent or binding > statement made about anything else. I play with all kinds of weird > bases from time to time... there are versions of the computer > language INTERCAL that work in bases 3-7, and I'd toyed with > Fibonacci base and Factorial "base" here and there too). The > discussion here seemed to be on what the default should be, and it's > fairly clear that the unmarked Lojban default always was, is > canonically, and probably should remain, decimal. That there > shouldn't be ways to talk about other bases (like ju'u) or even > "fix" a base as temporary default (in the Dozenal Society's journal, > for example (would likely be implicit there), or in a computer > science textbook) is not at issue: those things should definitely be > possible. > > ~mark lojban by default is hexadecimal. there may be notes in the refgram to the contrary, but they are in error. the presence of 16 digits clearly indicates hexadecimal. feel free to assume decimal and risk being misunderstood...why is it so hard just to use "ju'u dau"?