From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Tue May 29 21:03:00 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 30 May 2001 04:03:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 47231 invoked from network); 30 May 2001 04:02:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 30 May 2001 04:02:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.169.75.101) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 May 2001 04:02:46 -0000 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 154xBx-0004U1-00 for ; Tue, 29 May 2001 21:02:41 -0700 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 21:02:41 -0700 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] No number base?!? Message-ID: <20010529210241.G12764@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.18i From: Robin Lee Powell On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 12:58:17AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la camgusmis cusku di'e > > > > >"Why do you prefer base-16?" > > > > > > i mu'a lu ma krinu le nu do zmanei le me li vai ke namcu selyle'u li'u > > > >That doesn't parse. > > That's not polite, you should say: "That doesn't parse because > such or such a terminator is missing." I didn't feel the urge to take the time to attempt to fix something I didn't understand, at all. Especially since I'd just be guessing. > I don't really understand why it doesn't parse. Does {me li vai} need > to be closed? Oh, I see, it must be because that {ke} could be > absorbed into some weird MEX stuff. Ok, but instead of using a > terminator there change {ke namcu selyle'u} to {namcu bo selyle'u}. > Hopefully that should do it. True, but you're still talking about characters, not a number base. > >Even if it did, I wouldn't have even the most basic clue as to what the > >hell you were talking about. > > About a {selyle'u}, a system of symbols. Like I said. > >It sounds like you're asking 'Why do you like the letters associated > >with hexadecimal numbering?' which is a completely different question. > > The letters/digits would be {le lerfu}. Yes, they would. What do the lerfu used to express numbers have to do with the number base? > You could also use {le te saclu}, if you can figure out what that > predicate means. Ah, didn't notice the x3 of saclu. > Maybe we could redefine it as "x1 is the symbol of number x2 in base > x3", or maybe it already means that. You're right. I have no idea what that means. Wow. -Robin, who sometimes feels like this language missed some basic QA. -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku'i .oi le so'e datni cu to'e te pilno je xlali -- RLP http://www.lojban.org/