BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers
On Fri, Feb 11, 2005 at 01:29:57PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > That's neat and useful, but I consider losing usages like the
> > one I gave a rather drastic price to pay.
>
> There aren't that many scientific papers published in Lojban yet,
> and I doubt anything else requires the level of precision that
> inner number ji'i provides.
I want to use constructs like this in English all the time.
> Even for those cases ji'i is much worse than the more usual
> convention of +/- uncertainty/error.
I'm not talking about scientific levels of precision here.
> Anyway, my proposal is meant for use with quantifiers, and the
> digit precision convention is more suited for measurements, so
> there is little chance of conflict there.
If you expect it to be used different ways in different contexts,
the proposal should say so.
-Robin