The current definition specifies that dikca3 defaults to the negative. The
note for "dikca" also says "(x₃, a quantifier, can be expressed as a
simple polarity using the numerals for positive and negative ma'u and
ni'u); (explicitly) negative (= dutydikca), positive (= mardikca);
current (= selmuvdikca, muvdikca; again default negative/electron
current), charge (= klodikca, stadikca). See also lindi, xampo,
flecu, maksi, tcana.".

There are multiple references to default being negative or electron-based.
Usually, in Lojban, defaults are nonnegative values, usually +1.

It is also the case that, if we were to name the signs of electricity from
scratch while knowing what we know now, then it would be rather more
natural for us to label protons as negatively charged and electrons as
positively charged. Notice that there is nothing inherent about "negative"
referring to the electron's charge signum.

Therefore, and consistent with other definitions which I have written, I
propose that the signum convention for "dikca" be that numbers which are
expressed as positive refer to charges which match that of the electron in
signum, that the default refer to such charges (so, the mention of
"negative" in the definition is a translation – it still refers to the
electron charge signum), etc., and that this convention be followed
throughout Lojban. This will impact how we think of conventional currents
(they will coincide with normal electron currents in Lojban), the
definitions of magnetic poles, etc. There are several independent signa
conventions in E&M, so the exact combinations matter.

Caveat: Another consequence of this proposal would be that the original
note for this word would have to be changed, or we would have to interpret
"negative" for "dutydikca" to mean "negative relative to (my proposed)
Lojbanic convention, id est: the electron charge; thus: matching the
proton charge signum", and likewise for "mardikca" (incidentally, the
selection of the veljvo of which I do not comprehend). The original note
would be somewhat inconsistent in its meaning between instances of
mentions of signa. But, actually, I think that that is already bordering
on the case as it was in the original interpretation.
I think that these lujvo are undefined in JVS, so defining them as we wish
should be easy. The trick would be to bring any instances of the usage of
any of these terms in pre-existing corpus material into alignment with
this proposal.

The result of this proposal, in brief, would be to make electron charge
signum preference not just the default, but also the positive-valued (and
easier) option for/in expression.

A similar notice would be made for "xampo" and its derivatives, such as
"xapsnidu".

Despite all of these concerns, I believe that this is the correct way to
go forward.

Comment #2: Re: Signum convention

Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 26 10:19:08 2021)

krtisfranks wrote: > The current definition specifies that dikca3 defaults to the negative. The > note for "dikca" also says "(x3, a quantifier, can be expressed as a > simple polarity using the numerals for positive and negative ma'u and > ni'u); (explicitly) negative (= dutydikca), positive (= mardikca); > current (= selmuvdikca, muvdikca; again default negative/electron > current), charge (= klodikca, stadikca). See also lindi, xampo, > flecu, maksi, tcana.". > > There are multiple references to default being negative or electron-based. > Usually, in Lojban, defaults are nonnegative values, usually +1. > > It is also the case that, if we were to name the signs of electricity from > scratch while knowing what we know now, then it would be rather more > natural for us to label protons as negatively charged and electrons as > positively charged. Notice that there is nothing inherent about "negative" > referring to the electron's charge signum. > > Therefore, and consistent with other definitions which I have written, I > propose that the signum convention for "dikca" be that numbers which are > expressed as positive refer to charges which match that of the electron in > signum, that the default refer to such charges (so, the mention of > "negative" in the definition is a translation – it still refers to the > electron charge signum), etc., and that this convention be followed > throughout Lojban. This will impact how we think of conventional currents > (they will coincide with normal electron currents in Lojban), the > definitions of magnetic poles, etc. There are several independent signa > conventions in E&M, so the exact combinations matter. > > Caveat: Another consequence of this proposal would be that the original > note for this word would have to be changed, or we would have to interpret > "negative" for "dutydikca" to mean "negative relative to (my proposed) > Lojbanic convention, id est: the electron charge; thus: matching the > proton charge signum", and likewise for "mardikca" (incidentally, the > selection of the veljvo of which I do not comprehend). The original note > would be somewhat inconsistent in its meaning between instances of > mentions of signa. But, actually, I think that that is already bordering > on the case as it was in the original interpretation. > I think that these lujvo are undefined in JVS, so defining them as we wish > should be easy. The trick would be to bring any instances of the usage of > any of these terms in pre-existing corpus material into alignment with > this proposal. > > The result of this proposal, in brief, would be to make electron charge > signum preference not just the default, but also the positive-valued (and > easier) option for/in expression. > > A similar notice would be made for "xampo" and its derivatives, such as > "xapsnidu". > > Despite all of these concerns, I believe that this is the correct way to > go forward. Correction/clarification: The aforementioned lujvo are defined already, but they lack specificity enough to avoid ambiguity wrt charge signum conventions. We can clarify them at no cost. I would, even so, find a rafsi other than "-mar-" though.

Comment #3: Re: Signum convention

gleki (Sat Jun 26 14:56:40 2021)

krtisfranks wrote: > It is also the case that, if we were to name the signs of electricity from > scratch while knowing what we know now, then it would be rather more > natural for us to label protons as negatively charged and electrons as > positively charged. Notice that there is nothing inherent about "negative" > referring to the electron's charge signum. Can you provide an example of dikca with all places filled?

Comment #4: Re: Signum convention

gleki (Sat Jun 26 14:56:41 2021)

krtisfranks wrote: > It is also the case that, if we were to name the signs of electricity from > scratch while knowing what we know now, then it would be rather more > natural for us to label protons as negatively charged and electrons as > positively charged. Notice that there is nothing inherent about "negative" > referring to the electron's charge signum. Can you provide an example of dikca with all places filled?