spheniscine wrote: > Yes, there is somewhat of a difference between the laic definition of > significant, and the technical one... perhaps it could use a "by standard" > place, though I'm not sure how that would help disambiguate.
Well indeed, I have neglected the English definition, I'm sorry. You can look at the Lojban version for a more precise definition.
I've created this word because I felt a need for it for formally defining barda, so that something S is large in dimention D (relation between something and a number) as compared to norm N (plural/set) if and only if the number such that S is in relation D with it is greater by a significant amount than the arithmetic mean of the list L that is such that for each member M of N there is a specific entry in L containing the number that M is in relation D with.
I'm unsure whether the "by a significant amount" is needed for defining barda (largeness/greatness); I've included it as a result of a discussion I had with another Lojbanist who thought that, if, for example, given a set of people S among which there's a person P that is taller than average by say one milimeter, it wouldn't be enough for saying that P is tall as compared with S, and that for being tall, P should be "significantly" taller than average. I don't know whether that's really needed though. I'm also unsure how to define accurately this notion of "significant amount".
Having in mind the motive that led me to create this word, any suggestion for improving the English or Lojban definition would be more than welcome. (Also, it is very possible that one or more further sumti slots are needed.)
|