WikiDiscuss

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 10 of Aug, 2004 23:35 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 03:10:55PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Thursday 22 July 2004 00:02, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2004 at 10:59:16PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 20 July 2004 18:49, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 20, 2004 at 06:43:44PM -0400, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> > > > > It is also possible to express imaginary numbers in base 1-i,
> > > > > without using ni'u or ka'o. (1+i doesn't work. Why?)
> > > >
> > > > "1+i" doesn't work in what sense?
> > >
> > > I think you're asking the same thing I'm asking. The
> > > representation is binary in base 1+i or 1-i; base 1-i works, but
> > > base 1+i doesn't.
> >
> > I'm sorry, I have *NO* idea what you're talking about. It might
> > help if you showed me actual examples, maybe even in Lojban.
>
> Sorry for the braino, I meant i-1. The reason is that only half the
> complex integers have a representation in base i+1; in particular,
> there is no set of powers of 1+i whose sum is 3. Base i-1 does not
> have this problem; li re du li papanono ju'u ni'upaka'opa .ije li ci
> du li papanopa ju'u ni'upaka'opa. Below is a Python program that draws
> the numbers expressible in 16 bits in base i-1.

I'm sorry, I simply can't understand what "base i-1" or "base i+1" mean.
My math isn't up to it anymore.

-Robin