tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Jun 03 23:16:03 1998
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: jIchegh / more puns?
- From: "Klingon Ambassador" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: jIchegh / more puns?
- Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998 23:15:52 PDT
Stardate 9806.3
"Klingon Ambassador" Dawut here, re-entering the mix and commenting
sporadically again.
This was written:
>> 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.
>>
>well, that's how mathematicians count in base three...
>it presupposes the concept of "zero"
>
>and I would have expected this to be described as
>1, 2, 1x3 (+0), 1x3 +1, 1x3 +2, 2x3 (+0), 2x3 +1, 2x3 +2
>1x3^2 (+0x3 +0), 1x3^2 (+0x3) +1 etc.
>
>instead, Okrand's description of 1, 2, 3, 3+1, 3+2, 3+3,
>2x3 +1, 2x3 +2, 2x3 +3, 3x3 +1, 3x3 +2, 3x3 +3
>
>indicates to me that the concept of zero is absent and there are
>two different "3"s in the above. one that is used for the single
>digits and one that is used for the unit of the tens digits.
>
The concept of zero is not absent, as evidenced by the word {pagh}
"zero". Okrand's example addressed counting, and we seldom start
counting subjects with zero. If I were to count how many books I have, I
wouldn't begin with zero, I'd begin with one to represent the first
book.
Perhaps the expanded counting would be:
0, 1, 2, 3 <or> 3+0, 3+1, 3+2, 3+3, ...
pItlh.
Klingon Ambassador,
Dawut (David)
[email protected]
5051098
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com