tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 03 20:50:10 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
numbers (was Re: jIchegh / more puns?)
- From: "William H. Martin" <[email protected]>
- Subject: numbers (was Re: jIchegh / more puns?)
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1998 23:51:24 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)
- Priority: NORMAL
On Wed, 3 Jun 1998 16:49:57 -0700 (PDT) TPO
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >No, the original post was right. To count in base three, it's 0, 1, 2, 10,
> >11, 12, 20, 21, 22, 100, 101, etc.
>
> BUZZZ. wrong.
>
> check the beginning of the thread "long weekend with MO"
>
> One of the things I discussed with Marc (other than SIS) was the old number
> system.
>
> 0 (zero) = nothing; the absence of something; void; ...
> It is not a place holder as we use it here on earth.
>
> 0, 1, 2, 3, 11, 12, 13, 21, etc.
Well, I do understand that you can have number systems without
zero, so there is no "10", but if that is the case, then, well,
there is no zero, so your counting can't start with that rather
round character you began counting with...
> (hmm. If I can go to the qep'a' next year, maybe I could give a math class,
> using tlhIngan Hol of course.)
Well, not if you start counting in a system with no zero with a
zero. Meanwhile, Klingon does have a WORD for zero. Odd that
they would not have a digit for it...
> DloraH
charghwI'