jbovlaste
a lojban dictionary editing system
User:
Pass:

Home
Get A Printable Dictionary
Search Best Words
Recent Changes
How You Can Help
valsi - All
valsi - Preferred Only
natlang - All
natlang - Preferred Only
Languages
XML Export
user Listing
Report Bugs
Utilities
Status
Help
Admin Request
Create Account
Discussion of "fi'u"

Comment #1: Dangerous overloading?
Jonathan (Wed May 20 05:16:13 2015)

I don't think (fi'u) alone should mean the golden ratio; seems like
dangerous overloading to me. Should probably be split to a different cmavo.

Comment #2: Re: Dangerous overloading?
gleki (Wed May 20 07:27:27 2015)

spheniscine wrote:
> I don't think (fi'u) alone should mean the golden ratio; seems like
> dangerous overloading to me. Should probably be split to a different
cmavo.


i think you should ask lojbab why it came into being

Comment #3: Re: Dangerous overloading?
Curtis W Franks (Thu May 21 00:51:59 2015)

spheniscine wrote:
> I don't think (fi'u) alone should mean the golden ratio; seems like
> dangerous overloading to me. Should probably be split to a different
cmavo.


I have been meaning to comment on this and say the same thing. At the very
least, a separate cmavo should be optional/available. It also makes the
division symbol (of which there are several, really) conflated with the
symbol for the golden ratio (phi); it is a minor point, but a potential
stumbling block. I do not see the golden ratio as being all that
fundamental for fractions, despite its being "golden".

Comment #4: Re: Dangerous overloading?
Alex Burka (Thu May 21 02:43:22 2015)

krtisfranks wrote:
> spheniscine wrote:
> > I don't think (fi'u) alone should mean the golden ratio; seems like
> > dangerous overloading to me. Should probably be split to a different
> cmavo.
>
>
> I have been meaning to comment on this and say the same thing. At the
very
> least, a separate cmavo should be optional/available. It also makes the
> division symbol (of which there are several, really) conflated with the
> symbol for the golden ratio (phi); it is a minor point, but a potential
> stumbling block. I do not see the golden ratio as being all that
> fundamental for fractions, despite its being "golden".

fe'i is the division operator, though. But I can't say I understand why
we need both fe'i and fi'u.

Comment #5: Re: Dangerous overloading?
Jonathan (Thu May 21 07:20:07 2015)

durka42 wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > spheniscine wrote:
> > > I don't think (fi'u) alone should mean the golden ratio; seems like
> > > dangerous overloading to me. Should probably be split to a different
> > cmavo.
> >
> >
> > I have been meaning to comment on this and say the same thing. At the
> very
> > least, a separate cmavo should be optional/available. It also makes the

> > division symbol (of which there are several, really) conflated with the

> > symbol for the golden ratio (phi); it is a minor point, but a potential

> > stumbling block. I do not see the golden ratio as being all that
> > fundamental for fractions, despite its being "golden".
>
> fe'i is the division operator, though. But I can't say I understand why

> we need both fe'i and fi'u.
fe'i is in selma'o VUhU and acts as a mathematical operator, connecting
two numbers. fi'u however is in selma'o PA and acts as part of a number.
So (li re fi'u mu fe'i ze fi'u so) means the fraction 2/5 divided by the
fraction 7/9. The experimental grammar merges VUhU with JOI, making (li re
fi'u mu fe'i li ze fi'u so) also acceptable.

Comment #7: Re: Dangerous overloading?
Alex Burka (Thu May 21 15:37:58 2015)

spheniscine wrote:
> durka42 wrote:
> > krtisfranks wrote:
> > > spheniscine wrote:
> > > > I don't think (fi'u) alone should mean the golden ratio; seems like

> > > > dangerous overloading to me. Should probably be split to a
different
> > > cmavo.
> > >
> > >
> > > I have been meaning to comment on this and say the same thing. At the

> > very
> > > least, a separate cmavo should be optional/available. It also makes
the
>
> > > division symbol (of which there are several, really) conflated with
the
>
> > > symbol for the golden ratio (phi); it is a minor point, but a
potential
>
> > > stumbling block. I do not see the golden ratio as being all that
> > > fundamental for fractions, despite its being "golden".
> >
> > fe'i is the division operator, though. But I can't say I understand
why
>
> > we need both fe'i and fi'u.
> fe'i is in selma'o VUhU and acts as a mathematical operator, connecting

> two numbers. fi'u however is in selma'o PA and acts as part of a
number.
> So (li re fi'u mu fe'i ze fi'u so) means the fraction 2/5 divided by the
> fraction 7/9. The experimental grammar merges VUhU with JOI, making (li
re
> fi'u mu fe'i li ze fi'u so) also acceptable.

I know that, but (li re fe'i mu fe'i vei ze fe'i so) also means that. So
I'm not sure why we need fi'u for "division as a digit".

Comment #8: Re: Dangerous overloading?
Jonathan (Fri May 22 00:42:21 2015)

durka42 wrote:
> spheniscine wrote:
> > durka42 wrote:
> > > krtisfranks wrote:
> > > > spheniscine wrote:
> > > > > I don't think (fi'u) alone should mean the golden ratio; seems
like
>
> > > > > dangerous overloading to me. Should probably be split to a
> different
> > > > cmavo.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I have been meaning to comment on this and say the same thing. At
the
>
> > > very
> > > > least, a separate cmavo should be optional/available. It also makes

> the
> >
> > > > division symbol (of which there are several, really) conflated with

> the
> >
> > > > symbol for the golden ratio (phi); it is a minor point, but a
> potential
> >
> > > > stumbling block. I do not see the golden ratio as being all that
> > > > fundamental for fractions, despite its being "golden".
> > >
> > > fe'i is the division operator, though. But I can't say I understand

> why
> >
> > > we need both fe'i and fi'u.
> > fe'i is in selma'o VUhU and acts as a mathematical operator,
connecting
>
> > two numbers. fi'u however is in selma'o PA and acts as part of a
> number.
> > So (li re fi'u mu fe'i ze fi'u so) means the fraction 2/5 divided by
the
> > fraction 7/9. The experimental grammar merges VUhU with JOI, making (li

> re
> > fi'u mu fe'i li ze fi'u so) also acceptable.
>
> I know that, but (li re fe'i mu fe'i vei ze fe'i so) also means that. So
> I'm not sure why we need fi'u for "division as a digit".
It's just a small semantic difference, even if the mathematical result is
the same, I suppose. And li fe'i ci isn't grammatical, while li fi'u ci
is.

Comment #6: Re: Dangerous overloading?
Jonathan (Thu May 21 07:33:36 2015)

krtisfranks wrote:
> spheniscine wrote:
> > I don't think (fi'u) alone should mean the golden ratio; seems like
> > dangerous overloading to me. Should probably be split to a different
> cmavo.
>
>
> I have been meaning to comment on this and say the same thing. At the
very
> least, a separate cmavo should be optional/available. It also makes the
> division symbol (of which there are several, really) conflated with the
> symbol for the golden ratio (phi); it is a minor point, but a potential
> stumbling block. I do not see the golden ratio as being all that
> fundamental for fractions, despite its being "golden".

I agree. I am provisionally assigning fai'u to it (get it?)

Currently, jbovlaste will accept data for 69 languages.
You are not logged in.

  recent changes jbovlaste main
This is jbovlaste, the lojban dictionary system.
The main code was last changed on Wed 07 Oct 2020 05:54:55 PM PDT.
All content is public domain. By submitting content, you agree to place it in the public domain to the fullest extent allowed by local law.
jbovlaste is an official project of the logical language group, and is now headed by Robin Lee Powell.
E-mail him if you have any questions.
care to log in?