From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Sep 28 18:10:06 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 29 Sep 2001 01:08:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 50949 invoked from network); 29 Sep 2001 01:08:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 29 Sep 2001 01:08:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-1.cais.net) (205.252.14.71) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Sep 2001 01:10:06 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (dynamic244.cl8.cais.net [205.177.20.244]) by stmpy-1.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8T1A1793539; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:10:01 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010928205209.00bd17f0@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 21:06:51 -0400 To: phma@oltronics.net Subject: Re: [lojban] periodic hexadecimal reminder Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <3BB24208.3020001@reutershealth.com> References: <0109261630250A.01489@neofelis> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 05:00 PM 9/26/01 -0400, John Cowan wrote: >Pierre Abbat wrote: > > I think {ju'u} is in the wrong selma'o. All other binary mex operands take > > two numbers and return a number. Not necessarily. That may be the most common usage. But "addition" in the context of non-numerical strings is usually interpreted as concatenation, and Mex is used to handle that as well. Mex allows all manner of operations, including operations on objects not normally considered to be mathematical. In Lojban you really can compare apples and oranges (using Mex). All you have to do is define what the basis for the comparison is. (In slot machines, a cherry is greater than a lemon.) > >{ju'u} takes a naclerpoi and a number and > > returns a number. That is the standard mathematical application of ju'u. But when I was looking into Mex, I found all manner of strange notations and operations that might be portrayed using Mex. > > ze bi'esu'i bi pi'i so = (7+8)*9 > > ze bi'esu'i bi ju'u so = ? > > is it 14 (which is written 15 in base 9) or what? > >It's nonsense. I'm not sure I agree; rather it is moot. I understand (a+b) base c to mean evaluate (a+b) assuming each is written in base c. It is only "nonsense" because there is no reason to have used the bi'e since there is no standard mathematical usage where different bases would be used for different numbers without explicitly marking them so that 7 + 8base9 implicitly means 7 base 9 + 8 base 9. Lojban does not purport to dictate the semantics of mathematics, which is self consistent only within a single axiomatic context. -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org