[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jorge Llambias scripsit:
> I don't see anything at all problematic about {su'opino}, it just
> means "at least .0", i.e. any positive real or zero.
I meant "problematic for its intended use".
> I would not
> take anything involving {pi} as an integer. Even {pa pi no} is a
> real which just happens to be an integer, but it would be a value
> to be used in a context where reals make sense. (So not as a
> regular quantifier.)
I don't agree. 22.0 is an integer and, of course, a real number.
The fact that (most) computer languages want to give 22 one representation
and 22.0 a different one is neither here nor there.
Scheme, at least, is more sensible: numbers are exact or inexact, and
may be complex, real (which implies complex), rational (which implies
real), and integer (which implies rational): the so-called "numeric tower".
Arithmetic on exact numbers must (for algebraic functions, anyway) return exact
results: dividing an exact 2 by an exact 3 returns an exact 2/3.
> >I propose tu'opino instead.
>
> I wouldn't take {tu'o} as a digit either,
I don't see why not.
--
Not to perambulate || John Cowan <jcowan@hidden.email>
the corridors || http://www.reutershealth.com
during the hours of repose || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
in the boots of ascension. \\ Sign in Austrian ski-resort hotel