gleki wrote:
>

"so'a" is a laic/colloquial. It just means "a lot".

But this is a mathematical term/jargon. In this sense, almost all of a
dartboard is not the exact bull's eye or on any infinitely thin
(mathematically ideal) curve which creates a boundary between regions. The
area of the rest of the dartboard is the same as the dartboard as a whole.

Comment #3: Re: how is it different from so'a?

Curtis W Franks (Sat Aug 25 19:06:09 2018)

krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > > > "so'a" is a laic/colloquial. It just means "a lot". > > But this is a mathematical term/jargon. In this sense, almost all of a > dartboard is not the exact bull's eye or on any infinitely thin > (mathematically ideal) curve which creates a boundary between regions. The > area of the rest of the dartboard is the same as the dartboard as a whole. Almost all real numbers are irrational in this technical sense, but infinitely many real numbers are rational too (and the set of these is even dense in the reals). Maybe a probabilistic argument can also elucidate the distinction: Colloquially, almost all of the dartboard is not the outer ring of the bull's eye region, and it is not only possible to hit within this ring, but it actually has a nonzero probability of happening. Thus, it is not the case that almost all of the board, in a technical sense, is not this ring. However, for the exact bull's eye (exact center point), while it is technically possible to hit it, there is a 0% chance of doing so because almost all of board (in a technical sense) is not the exact center point.

Comment #4: Re: how is it different from so'a?

gleki (Sat Aug 25 19:06:52 2018)

krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > > > "so'a" is a laic/colloquial. It just means "a lot". then so'i? > > But this is a mathematical term/jargon. In this sense, almost all of a > dartboard is not the exact bull's eye or on any infinitely thin > (mathematically ideal) curve which creates a boundary between regions. The > area of the rest of the dartboard is the same as the dartboard as a whole. related to ga'o then?

Comment #5: Re: how is it different from so'a? Curtis W Franks (Sat Aug 25 20:15:15 2018) gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > > "so'a" is a laic/colloquial. It just means "a lot". > > then so'i? > > > > > But this is a mathematical term/jargon. In this sense, almost all of a > > dartboard is not the exact bull's eye or on any infinitely thin > > (mathematically ideal) curve which creates a boundary between regions. > The > > area of the rest of the dartboard is the same as the dartboard as a > whole. > > related to ga'o then? Not too closely, actually. :/

gleki wrote:
>

Okay, maybe this will explain it:

"piso'a" does NOT always mean 100%. It means maybe 90%, or 99%, or
99.99999%, depending on context, but it definitely can mean something other
than exactly and truly 100%. It can be strictly less than 100% (and is
always strictly greater than 0%, probably even strictly greater than 50%,
if the whole has enough subparts). I would assume that "so'a" does not
contain "ro" and likewise for 'piso'a" and "piro". It is also
context-dependent on its value.

"pisoi'ai" always, always, ALWAYS means 100%. There is no context
dependency or anything like that. (However, it never refers to the whole of
the thing, which is piro. Therefore, it is bounded below by any possible
value for piso'a such that the result is not 100% and is bounded above by
piro).

Right now, I am okay with piso'a possibly sometimes referring to the same
thing as pisoi'ai, depending on context. But there are times when it
does/may not. Basically, pisoi'ai is always piso'a in this loose definition
which I currently accept, but the inverse is not true. If you want piso'a
strictly less than pisoi'ai, then say as much ("piso'a jenai pisoi'ai" or
similar). Notice that to say "pisu'esoi'ai" or "su'episoi'ai" (I am not
sure that there is a meaningful difference between these two options right
now) should mean any fraction of the whole such that it is not the whole
(piro), including very small fractions or even 0%. Moreover, "me'ipisoi'ai"
or "pime'isoi'ai" (again, I am not sure that these differ from one another)
is more or less equivalent to "su'episo'a" or "pisu'eso'a" (likewise),
except for the case when "so'a" can or does refer to 100% (so maybe that is
a reason for piso'a being always strictly bounded above by pisoi'ai, not
that I think about it - so, maybe I will have to say that piso'a is never
pisoi'ai and vice-versa, afterall, contrary to what I said before). Recall
that "100%" in this case is not equivalent to "the whole of".

So, if piso'a of that makes sense to you, then you can analogously
understand soi'ai alone by comparing it to so'a, ro, and maybe da'a.

Comment #7: Re: how is it different from so'a?

Curtis W Franks (Sun Sep 9 02:42:30 2018)

krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > > > Okay, maybe this will explain it: > > "piso'a" does NOT always mean 100%. It means maybe 90%, or 99%, or > 99.99999%, depending on context, but it definitely can mean something other > than exactly and truly 100%. It can be strictly less than 100% (and is > always strictly greater than 0%, probably even strictly greater than 50%, > if the whole has enough subparts). I would assume that "so'a" does not > contain "ro" and likewise for 'piso'a" and "piro". It is also > context-dependent on its value. > > "pisoi'ai" always, always, ALWAYS means 100%. There is no context > dependency or anything like that. (However, it never refers to the whole of > the thing, which is piro. Therefore, it is bounded below by any possible > value for piso'a such that the result is not 100% and is bounded above by > piro). > > Right now, I am okay with piso'a possibly sometimes referring to the same > thing as pisoi'ai, depending on context. But there are times when it > does/may not. Basically, pisoi'ai is always piso'a in this loose definition > which I currently accept, but the inverse is not true. If you want piso'a > strictly less than pisoi'ai, then say as much ("piso'a jenai pisoi'ai" or > similar). Notice that to say "pisu'esoi'ai" or "su'episoi'ai" (I am not > sure that there is a meaningful difference between these two options right > now) should mean any fraction of the whole such that it is not the whole > (piro), including very small fractions or even 0%. Moreover, "me'ipisoi'ai" > or "pime'isoi'ai" (again, I am not sure that these differ from one another) > is more or less equivalent to "su'episo'a" or "pisu'eso'a" (likewise), > except for the case when "so'a" can or does refer to 100% (so maybe that is > a reason for piso'a being always strictly bounded above by pisoi'ai, not > that I think about it - so, maybe I will have to say that piso'a is never > pisoi'ai and vice-versa, afterall, contrary to what I said before). Recall > that "100%" in this case is not equivalent to "the whole of". > > So, if piso'a of that makes sense to you, then you can analogously > understand soi'ai alone by comparing it to so'a, ro, and maybe da'a. One last take: "piso'a" means "by far most of" or "very, very much/many of". "pisoi'ai" is far more technical in its definition.