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.