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 "tarmrclefli"
[parent] [root]
Comment #1: Support
Curtis W Franks (Fri Jun 26 06:06:30 2015)

I presently do not know how to support the usage/description of Schlafli
symbols. Moreover, my current definition mentions "similar to the regular
polytope described by Schlafli symbol" (rather than simply but more
properly/exactly "the regular polytope described by Schlafli symbol"); if
too little support exists, I recommend the maintenance of the current
definition, that way irregular polytopes can easily be described (as we
just for them to be regular by appending the seltau for "regular" before
this word); if enough support is given, it might be okay to change the
definition so as to reference only the exact polytope given by the Schlafli
symbol (which classically is regular but with certain operators, becomes
semiregular, etc.), but doing so may not be practically advantageous. For
example, rectangles can be described by x, where "x" is a Cartesian
product, but that is much harder to say than "similar to 4"; the current
definition would allow for the latter, although confusion between
quadrilaterals would ensue (which can be mopped up via tanru, clauses,
etc.), but the more restrictive definition would necessitate the use of
only the former. The current definition make x = 4, which is somewhat
wasteful, not to mention annoying to mathematicians who actually want to be
careful/distinguish these objects.
So, what are your opinions on:
1) How should we support Schlafli symbol notation?
2) Which definition should be used given the support that you described?

Note: represents a line segment.

Comment #2: Re: Support
Curtis W Franks (Fri Jun 26 06:17:09 2015)

Oops: Mark-up mutilated the description. Let Schlafli symbols be denoted
with round parenthesis "(" and ")" rather than curly braces. What looks
like just "x" above (except in the description of "x" being the Cartesian
product) is actually the Cartesian product of two empty Schlafli symbols:
()x(). What looks like "4" above is actually the Schlafli symbol for a
square: (4).

Comment #3: Re: Support
Wuzzy (Fri Jun 26 14:27:14 2015)

krtisfranks wrote:
> I presently do not know how to support the usage/description of Schlafli
> symbols. Moreover, my current definition mentions "similar to the
regular
> polytope described by Schlafli symbol" (rather than simply but more
> properly/exactly "the regular polytope described by Schlafli symbol"); if

> too little support exists, I recommend the maintenance of the current
> definition, that way irregular polytopes can easily be described (as we
> just for them to be regular by appending the seltau for "regular" before
> this word); if enough support is given, it might be okay to change the
> definition so as to reference only the exact polytope given by the
Schlafli
> symbol (which classically is regular but with certain operators, becomes
> semiregular, etc.), but doing so may not be practically advantageous. For

> example, rectangles can be described by x, where "x" is a Cartesian
> product, but that is much harder to say than "similar to 4"; the
current
> definition would allow for the latter, although confusion between
> quadrilaterals would ensue (which can be mopped up via tanru, clauses,
> etc.), but the more restrictive definition would necessitate the use of
> only the former. The current definition make x = 4, which is
somewhat
> wasteful, not to mention annoying to mathematicians who actually want to
be
> careful/distinguish these objects.
> So, what are your opinions on:
> 1) How should we support Schlafli symbol notation?
> 2) Which definition should be used given the support that you described?
>
> Note: represents a line segment.

I can't help much here because I don't know anything about the concept in
question.
If you can't decide for one fu'ivla which makes you happy, then
maybe create multiple cibyfu'ivla for similar Schl?fli-related concepts,
just change the ?topic rafsi? as needed.

For example, simsrclefli if you want to emphasize similarity, instead of
an exact match, etc.

Comment #4: Re: Support
Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 27 04:16:38 2015)

Wuzzy wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > I presently do not know how to support the usage/description of
Schlafli
> > symbols. Moreover, my current definition mentions "similar to the
> regular
> > polytope described by Schlafli symbol" (rather than simply but more
> > properly/exactly "the regular polytope described by Schlafli symbol");
if
>
> > too little support exists, I recommend the maintenance of the current
> > definition, that way irregular polytopes can easily be described (as we

> > just for them to be regular by appending the seltau for "regular"
before
> > this word); if enough support is given, it might be okay to change the
> > definition so as to reference only the exact polytope given by the
> Schlafli
> > symbol (which classically is regular but with certain operators,
becomes
> > semiregular, etc.), but doing so may not be practically advantageous.
For
>
> > example, rectangles can be described by x, where "x" is a Cartesian

> > product, but that is much harder to say than "similar to 4"; the
> current
> > definition would allow for the latter, although confusion between
> > quadrilaterals would ensue (which can be mopped up via tanru, clauses,
> > etc.), but the more restrictive definition would necessitate the use of

> > only the former. The current definition make x = 4, which is
> somewhat
> > wasteful, not to mention annoying to mathematicians who actually want
to
> be
> > careful/distinguish these objects.
> > So, what are your opinions on:
> > 1) How should we support Schlafli symbol notation?
> > 2) Which definition should be used given the support that you
described?
> >
> > Note: represents a line segment.
>
> I can't help much here because I don't know anything about the concept in

> question.
> If you can't decide for one fu'ivla which makes you happy, then
> maybe create multiple cibyfu'ivla for similar Schl?fli-related concepts,
> just change the ?topic rafsi? as needed.
>
> For example, simsrclefli if you want to emphasize similarity, instead
of
> an exact match, etc.

Good idea. I am going to mull it over a bit and then possibly use that
idea, depending on my finalized thoughts. Thanks!

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?