Re: Numbers

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

la djan cusku di'e
 
> >    With the interpretation of the paper, 20ji'i30 would be a number
> >    between 2010 and 2099, or something like that.
>
> More precisely (but not necessarily more accurately), it expresses a random
> variable whose range is 2000-2099 and whose measure of central tendency
> (exactly which measure is unspecified) is 2030.
 
A random variable? I thought it was just a way of being imprecise.
So I can't use it to say that the town has approximately 30 houses,
because I certainly don't want to make claims about random variables
with range and measure of central tendency. It is not even clear to
me what is the exact range allowed by the imprecision that I want.
 
> >    To say that with
> >    my interpretation, I would say 2050ji'i or ji'i2050. The
> >    uncertainty is given by the last significant (non-zero) digit.
>
> But the idea of inserting "ji'i" is precisely to get rid of the ambiguity
> (mabla) between significant and non-significant zeros.  What is the meaning
> of ji'i2000 in your scheme?  2000-2009, 2000-2099, or 2000-2999?
 
More like 1500-2500. The 2 is the least significant digit.
 
2000-2009 would be ji'i2005
2000-2099 would be ji'i2050
2000-2999 would be ji'i2500
 
but I'm not advocating a strict range. I wouldn't say that if it turned
out that the number was 1999, then ji'i2005 would be wrong.
 
> There's
> no way to know.
 
Yes there is. Just don't use a zero as the least significant digit.
Since that digit is not significant anyway, there is no loss by not
letting it be zero.
 
> But with the existing scheme, these three ranges can be
> pinned down as 200ji'i0, 20ji'i00, and 2ji'i000.
 
And how do you pin down a range like 2150-2300? What's so special
about ranges with endnumbers ending in zero or nine? What good
is so much precision if it can only be applied to a very limited
(arbitrary) set of ranges?
 
> Furthermore, if the
> central-tendency measure is in fact useful, you can give that as well
> by saying (e.g.) 200ji'i3, 20j'i44, or 2ji'i123.
 
My method doesn't allow you to give such an accurate central-tendency
measure, but I don't see the point of it, given that you don't have
much freedom to choose the range.
 
Suppose that the central-tendency measure was useful. Then you can say
2003 with range 2000-2009, but you can't say 2003 with range 1995-2005.
What's the point of so much precision if you can't use it in general?
It is very precise, but in most cases you won't be able to use it,
precisely because it is too precise. It would be a big coincidence that
the range you need just happens to be one of the very few that are
available.
 
> >    {ji'i} would only say that the total number is not exact, not
> >    a particular digit. (The ji'i+ and ji'i- convention for rounding
> >    could still be kept.)
>
> But the use of inserted ji'i makes so much more flexibility possible.
 
I don't see how, there's no flexibility to choose the range, so there's
no flexibility at all. To me, it only disrupts the flow of the number.
It is hard enough to have an idea of what the number is until you
hear it complete. If on top of that you have deal with internal
distractions, which only make life harder...
 
Jorge