Re: Numbers

[Logical Language Group <lojbab>]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> 3- My interpretation of {ji'i} allows to say everything that you can
>    say with the one proposed in the grammar paper, and more.
>    With my interpretation <number>ji'i<number> means a number
>    between those two, or approximately that. So 20ji'i30 would
>    be a number between 20 and 30, but could eventually be 19 or 31,
>    it is approximate, and the difference between the numbers gives
>    an idea of the uncertainty.
> 
>    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.

>    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?  There's
no way to know.  But with the existing scheme, these three ranges can be
pinned down as 200ji'i0, 20ji'i00, and 2ji'i000.  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.

>    {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.

-- 
John Cowan		sharing account <lojbab@access.digex.net> for now
		e'osai ko sarji la lojban.