- 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 "fa'ai'ai"
Comment #1:
Example
|
Curtis W Franks (Sun Sep 8 05:36:31 2019)
|
Example: Ultimate digital roots are preserved under integer addition. Let "dr" denote the ultimate digital root function in decimal base. Then for any natural numbers
n1, n2,..., nm, it is true that
dr(n1 + n2 + ... + nm) = dr(n1) + dr(n2) + ... + dr(nm). The rhs in that equation (in general function form) can be expressed via "fa'ai'ai" where f = '+' ("su'i"), g = 'dr', and S = "ro".
|
-
Comment #2:
Re: Example
|
Curtis W Franks (Sun Sep 8 05:41:45 2019)
|
(It did not display before, so I am hoping to fix that)
krtisfranks wrote: > Example: Ultimate digital roots are preserved under integer addition. Let "dr" denote the ultimate digital root function in decimal base. Then for any nonnegative integer m and for any natural numbers n_1, n_2, ..., n_m, it is true that dr(n_1 + n_2 +...+ n_m) = dr(n_1) + dr(n_2) +...+ dr(n_m), where m = 0 implies an empty sum which we conventionally define to be equal to 0. The rhs in that equation (in general function form) can be expressed via "fa'ai'ai" where f = '+' (Lojban: "su'i"), g = 'dr', and S = "ro".
|
-
Comment #3:
Re: Example
|
Curtis W Franks (Sun Sep 8 05:49:55 2019)
|
The relevant rhs should actually be "dr(rhs_0)", where rhs_0 is the relevant one originally displayed; the mention of "rhs" in the original text should instead refer to rhs_0.
krtisfranks wrote: > it is true that dr(n_1 + n_2 +...+ n_m) = dr(n_1) + dr(n_2) +...+ > dr(n_m), where m = 0 implies an empty sum which we conventionally define > to be equal to 0. The rhs in that equation (in general function form) can > be expressed via "fa'ai'ai" where f = '+' (Lojban: "su'i"), g = 'dr', > and S = "ro".
|
-
Comment #4:
Re: Example
|
Curtis W Franks (Sun Sep 8 06:07:59 2019)
|
I just edited the definition of this word. The previous comments assume that m=0.
krtisfranks wrote: > The relevant rhs should actually be "dr(rhs_0)", where rhs_0 is the > relevant one originally displayed; the mention of "rhs" in the original > text should instead refer to rhs_0. > > krtisfranks wrote: > > it is true that dr(n_1 + n_2 +...+ n_m) = dr(n_1) + dr(n_2) +...+ > > dr(n_m), where m = 0 implies an empty sum which we conventionally define > > to be equal to 0. The rhs in that equation (in general function form) > can > > be expressed via "fa'ai'ai" where f = '+' (Lojban: "su'i"), g = 'dr', > > and S = "ro".
|
-
|
|
|
|
|