bases [was: Re: [lojban] Re:HEX advert... (Don't know what it was)

[thinkit8@lycos.com]

--- In lojban@y..., mark@k... wrote:
> --- In lojban@y..., "michael helsem" <graywyvern@h...> 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"?