Direction of Rotation

[la .lindar.]

le pritu ku farlu .ije le zunle ku tolfa'u

How does one say, "The wheel is spinning clockwise." ?

How does one say, "The clock is spinning anticlockwise." ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwise

Traditionally, before clocks, it was either "sunwise" or "rightwise" (to give a really poor translation), but none of this is suitable.

What do you suggest?

[Gleki Arxokuna]

x1 rotates clockwise in-frame-of-reference x2

[Jonathan Jones]

Um, {jultanfa'a} and {jultantolfa'a}?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/ESjKoxxj57UJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Jonathan Jones]

Crap. I meant {julxanfa'a} and {julxantolfa'a}.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:10 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

x1 rotates clockwise in-frame-of-reference x2

I'm pretty sure he was asking for suggestions of words. That's just a definition.
 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/ZNH4_42NsJQJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[la .lindar.]

Do we *really* have to use a clock metaphor?

[la .lindar.]

Maybe something like {prityfalgu'o} and {zulfalgu'o}?

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:15 AM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Do we *really* have to use a clock metaphor?

I tried looking up "polar" first, as in (θ,r) coordinate notation, but I couldn't find it.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe something like {prityfalgu'o} and {zulfalgu'o}?

Why gunro and not carna?
 

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe something like {prityfalgu'o} and {zulfalgu'o}?

That's fairly inaccurate. Rotation has nothing to with gravity, and falling /requires/ it. It is perfectly possible for something to move/rotate in a clockwise direction without falling. Every celestial body that isn't rotating counter-clockwise does it. (technically: the rotation of the Earth has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth is perpetually falling toward Sol.)

[Jonathan Jones]

I had an idea. Things can only move circularly in one of two directions. Why not just use {carna fi li pa} and {carna fi li re}, or even {carna fi lo pritu} and {carna fi lo zunle}?

[la .lindar.]

That's fairly inaccurate. Rotation has nothing to with gravity, and falling /requires/ it. It is perfectly possible for something to move/rotate in a clockwise direction without falling. Every celestial body that isn't rotating counter-clockwise does it. (technically: the rotation of the Earth has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth is perpetually falling toward Sol.)

Okay, but as I've asserted many times over and over and over and over and over and over again, I'm the stupidest genius at Lojban central. I've already established this fact, so we don't need to reestablish it. I didn't actually make a claim, I just said some bullshit because I wanted to convey a meaning. I understand that rotation has nothing to do with gravity, so while I am the stupidest one here, you *really* don't need to explain third-grade physics to me. I didn't actually think that was a good way to say "clockwise".

I was unaware of {carna}. What goes in the x3?

[Jonathan Jones]

Direction. x2 is the axis of rotation.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/OH5SO2aZ8d0J.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:29 AM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Okay, but as I've asserted many times over and over and over and over and over and over again, I'm the stupidest genius at Lojban central. I've already established this fact, so we don't need to reestablish it. I didn't actually make a claim, I just said some bullshit because I wanted to convey a meaning. I understand that rotation has nothing to do with gravity, so while I am the stupidest one here, you *really* don't need to explain third-grade physics to me. I didn't actually think that was a good way to say "clockwise".

Yes, well, I'm extremely socially inept and have a rather large tendency to over explain things, so I'll forgive your faults if you'll forgive mine.
 

[la .lindar.]

I was unaware of {carna}. What goes in the x3?

Direction. x2 is the axis of rotation. 

Are you trolling me or am I just not speaking that clearly?

What sort of thing would you put in the x3 of carna that would seem valid. 

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:32 AM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

I was unaware of {carna}. What goes in the x3?

Direction. x2 is the axis of rotation. 

Are you trolling me or am I just not speaking that clearly?

I thought you were asking what the x3 was, as in you didn't know. So I told you: Direction. Since I was assuming you didn't know the x3, I figured it wouldn't be a bad idea to tell you the x2 as well, just in case. Apologies for my mistake.

What sort of thing would you put in the x3 of carna that would seem valid. 

Did you not get this one?:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

I had an idea. Things can only move circularly in one of two directions. Why not just use {carna fi li pa} and {carna fi li re}, or even {carna fi lo pritu} and {carna fi lo zunle}?

[la .lindar.]

I had an idea. Things can only move circularly in one of two directions. Why not just use {carna fi li pa} and {carna fi li re}, or even {carna fi lo pritu} and {carna fi lo zunle}? 

From a completely unbiased standpoint, without any cultural knowledge, does that unambiguously indicate direction of rotation?

Which way is "left"? Are we measuring from the bottom or the top?

Which way is the "first" rotation? Is that culturally neutral? 

[Gleki Arxokuna]

11:33:31 - gleki: I need to read a textbook on topology in order to understand what chirality really is.

11:34:21 - gleki: It doesnt necessarily connected with rotation i.e. movement.

11:34:54 - gleki: {klama} / {farna} = {carna} / "chirality."

11:35:00 - gleki: the same relation.

11:35:10 - gleki: farna says nothing about movement.

11:42:43 - gleki: clockwise has nothing to do with physics.

11:43:19 - gleki: I'm sure that clockwise = chirality. And

11:43:19 - gleki: chirality + movement = rotation.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

I'm pretty sure that it's not.

doi lindar, your solution works, we only need to to replace "farlu" with something more generalised.

But....

Against lujvo.

Although we can fix any meaning in any lujvo I want something more fundamental.

otherwise we can just replace half of gismu with lujvo. It doesnt make tha language more beautiful.

ju'o if a concept is fundamental it's a semantic prim and deserves a gismu or short fu'ivla/zi'evla.

I have a feeling that this concept of handedness/chirality/handedness/clockwise can be used in so many cases that it should form other lujvo itself. therefore should have may be even rafsi.

[la .lindar.]

I apologise for being crabby. I felt insulted that you had assumed I was asking for the definition of the place; I can look that up myself. I felt it was fairly obvious from context what was my intent, but I can see where there could be confusion. I also felt insulted that you felt the need to explain to me that rotation isn't dependent on gravity. I know this. I passed high school. I'm sure it was entirely unintentional, but you've come off as rather condescending.

I've reacted rather poorly, however, and assumed that you had some sort of malevolent intent. I don't imagine this is the case, and I apologise for reacting as though it was.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

On Friday, August 10, 2012 11:48:50 AM UTC+4, la .lindar. wrote:

I apologise for being crabby. I felt insulted that you had assumed I was asking for the definition of the place; I can look that up myself. I felt it was fairly obvious from context what was my intent, but I can see where there could be confusion. I also felt insulted that you felt the need to explain to me that rotation isn't dependent on gravity. I know this. I passed high school. I'm sure it was entirely unintentional, but you've come off as rather condescending.

I've reacted rather poorly, however, and assumed that you had some sort of malevolent intent. I don't imagine this is the case, and I apologise for reacting as though it was.

I think it's my fault. We started discussing this stuff in #lojban chat  and then moved here.

And lindar published only an extract of our conversation.

Lindar knew that {farlu} wasn't the most generalised gismu that we could use. It was just an example of this concept.

Conlusion: lindar is not stupid.

Currently I think that this concept is not related to motion at all. It should be called chirality.

If {farna} is just a vector and {klama} is a movement according to such vector then

"chirality" is a twisted vector and {carna} is a movement according to such vector.

Sorry for such term as "twisted vector" but I'm not an expert in such things.

If there are mathematicians or topologists around please enlighten us.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:40 AM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

I had an idea. Things can only move circularly in one of two directions. Why not just use {carna fi li pa} and {carna fi li re}, or even {carna fi lo pritu} and {carna fi lo zunle}? 

From a completely unbiased standpoint, without any cultural knowledge, does that unambiguously indicate direction of rotation?

No, we'd need a frame of reference to establish which is which. Since carna doesn't have that place, it remains a small problem. We can assume, however, that by "right" we mean that the "top" of the rotating thing is moving right while simultaneously the "bottom" is moving left, if the object were looked at from a particular orientation- i.e. the frame of reference, which I'll dub the "face". For example, from the orientation of looking at a clock's "face", the 12 is the topmost number, and the 6 the bottommost, and so the imaginary circular planes the hands rotate within are moving "right".

Making the above assumption means we'd only have to establish what portion of the object is the "face".
 

Which way is "left"? Are we measuring from the bottom or the top?

I'd say to measure from the top. It's arbitrary which we choose, but we do have to consistently choose the same one to avoid confusion, hence the above assumptions.
 

Which way is the "first" rotation? Is that culturally neutral?

I'd say clockwise. Right-handed people are the vast majority in every culture, so definitely not neutral, but not, I'd say, for cultural reasons.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:48 AM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

I apologise for being crabby. I felt insulted that you had assumed I was asking for the definition of the place; I can look that up myself. I felt it was fairly obvious from context what was my intent, but I can see where there could be confusion. I also felt insulted that you felt the need to explain to me that rotation isn't dependent on gravity. I know this. I passed high school. I'm sure it was entirely unintentional, but you've come off as rather condescending.

Yeah, I have an unfortunate tendency to do that. As I said, I rather frequently over explain things. It was not, as you suspected, at all intentional, and I really do try not to do it.

That said, there's no need for you to apologize. It was entirely my fault, by intention or not, and I am not at all offended by your rather natural response.
 

I've reacted rather poorly, however, and assumed that you had some sort of malevolent intent. I don't imagine this is the case, and I apologise for reacting as though it was.

All I ask is that you keep in mind in future that I regard you as a comrade, and that at no point do I ever have malevolent intent with regards to my actions towards you - or, for that matter, anyone in this community. I just happen to have a social IQ of about 20.

[Jonathan Jones]

Regarding all of this thing with carna:

I find myself rather disappointed in the current definition of the word. As it stands, the x3 place has to be overloaded in order for the direction to be specified without ambiguity, because it has to establish not only what direction the rotation is in, but also the frame of reference as well. Granted, in some cases this frame can be zo'e-elided, such as with clocks or tops, but not all things are obvious. For instance, when a car is moving forward, when looking at the car from the left side, the wheels are rotating counter-clockwise, whereas if looking at the car from the right side, they are moving clockwise, and if you consider the point of reference the center of the axles, the left-side tires are moving counter and the right-side moving clock.

Particularly because their are /only/ two possible directions of rotation, it seems to me that a much better definition would have been:

x1 is rotating clockwise on axis x2 in reference frame x3.

This would have the benefit of making it horrendously easy to say:

carna: rotating clockwise
to'a carna: rotating counter-clockwise
na carna: not rotating
na'e carna: either not rotating, or rotating counter-clockwise
na'e to'e carna:either not rotating, or rotating clockwise

Since the above are the only possible things an object can do, and since I have no idea what the "opposite of rotating" could be, assuming such is even possible, this definition makes more sense.

Unfortunately, such a change in the definition would almost definitely break past usage, so this is just one of those can't (won't) fix problems.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]Conlusion: lindar is not stupid.

Agreed.
 

Currently I think that this concept is not related to motion at all. It should be called chirality.

If {farna} is just a vector and {klama} is a movement according to such vector then

"chirality" is a twisted vector and {carna} is a movement according to such vector.

chirality (uncountable)

1. The phenomenon, in chemistry, physics and mathematics, in which an object differs from its mirror image.

Based on that definition, which is the /only/ one on wiktionary, I have to disagree.
 

Sorry for such term as "twisted vector" but I'm not an expert in such things.

If there are mathematicians or topologists around please enlighten us.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:29 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

Regarding all of this thing with carna:

I find myself rather disappointed in the current definition of the word. As it stands, the x3 place has to be overloaded in order for the direction to be specified without ambiguity, because it has to establish not only what direction the rotation is in, but also the frame of reference as well. Granted, in some cases this frame can be zo'e-elided, such as with clocks or tops, but not all things are obvious. For instance, when a car is moving forward, when looking at the car from the left side, the wheels are rotating counter-clockwise, whereas if looking at the car from the right side, they are moving clockwise, and if you consider the point of reference the center of the axles, the left-side tires are moving counter and the right-side moving clock.

Particularly because their are /only/ two possible directions of rotation, it seems to me that a much better definition would have been:

x1 is rotating clockwise on axis x2 in reference frame x3.

This would have the benefit of making it horrendously easy to say:

carna: rotating clockwise
to'a carna: rotating counter-clockwise
na carna: not rotating

^ This one would be better as {no'e carna}, actually. With this definition, {na [to'e] carna} and {na'e [to'e] carna} technically mean the same thing.
 

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

I had an idea. Things can only move circularly in one of two directions. Why not just use {carna fi li pa} and {carna fi li re}, or even {carna fi lo pritu} and {carna fi lo zunle}?

We could also use "positive" and "negative" ({carna li ma'u}/{carna li mi'u? "li" doesn't seem appropriate in this case...), with "negative" being counter-clockwise, in line with polar coordinate notation, but that still doesn't address the reference frame problem.

[Escape Landsome]

.

No matter however precise one is, one cannot define the direction of
rotation of a spinning object without giving an arbitrary (or a
"cultural") reference frame. (Viz, the sun, a clock, some move with
his right hand, and so on).

The reason for this is geometrical and nearly metaphysical : it is a
well-known problem of epistemology, which was first noted by Kant in
his Critique of Pure Reason (in Transcendental Aesthetics), then also
noted by Lewis Carroll and Wittgenstein.

There's nothing in the pure 3d-euclidian geometry that can induce
something such as a "clockwise" or "counter-colckwise" movement, since
there is no arbitrary preference to stipulate the x, y and z-vectors.

Thus, the only thing you can say is that some determinante has value
+1 or -1, and that some rotations share the same value (though you
cannot say which one without arbitrary), and others share opposite
values.

This is such set that, were we bound to communicate with an alien race
in a parallel universe which we could not visit, but only speak about
it, we would have no clue whether some movement would be clockwise or
counterclockwise, and indeed, it is even the case that it would make
no sense at all.

Thus, the only convincing way to define the direction of rotation is
to culturally bind it to some famous move, e.g. the move of the hands
of some clock, for instance.

[Jonathan Jones]

Son of a... *ni'u... "positive" being...

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:07 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:27 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

I had an idea. Things can only move circularly in one of two directions. Why not just use {carna fi li pa} and {carna fi li re}, or even {carna fi lo pritu} and {carna fi lo zunle}?

We could also use "positive" and "negative" ({carna li ma'u}/{carna li ni'u}? "li" doesn't seem appropriate in this case...), with "positive" being counter-clockwise, in line with polar coordinate notation, but that still doesn't address the reference frame problem.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Jonathan Jones]

I disagree with nearly the entire statement.

Obviously a point of reference must be established, however, it is not true that such points can only be arbitrary or "cultural" in nature. For one thing, "cultural" is most certainly not a given. For a great, great many things, the "top" of the thing is obvious, and in those situations the point of reference is as well. Tops, humans, cars, planes, buildings, bottles,.... For other things in which the top is not so obvious (Celestial bodies such as Earth, other spherical objects, um...) then some arbitrary point is assigned- consistently.

If we were to communicate with an alien race, it stands to reason that we would not have the same words for concepts. That much is obvious just because we don't have the same words for concepts amongst /our own kind/. However, the concept itself- especially regarding universal truths, of which rotation is certainly numbered- will certainly exist.

If it is possible to describe rotational motion and the direction thereof in purely mathematical terms, and I'm sure it is, then regardless of any differences between us and them, we can communicate the meaning of "clockwise". "Green", on the other hand, might be an insurmountable challenge.

[.arpis.]

Positive being counterclockwise as per mathematical convention.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.

> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:48 AM, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:

Positive being counterclockwise as per mathematical convention.

Yes, that's what I meant. I corrected myself.
 

[Pierre Abbat]

On Friday 10 August 2012 03:32:53 la .lindar. wrote:
> What sort of thing would you put in the x3 of carna that would seem valid.

lo terdi cu carna lo jendu lo berti .i lo junla cu carna lo jendu lo bitmu .i
lo xislu be lo karce cu carna lo jendu lo zunle be lo karce

mu'omi'e .pier.

--
.i toljundi do .ibabo mi'afra tu'a do
.ibabo damba do .ibabo do jinga
.icu'u la ma'atman.

[Escape Landsome]

You don't prove any of what you claim.

But, whatever... If you claim you can define "clockwise" without
mentioning a clock, or the apparent move of the Sun in the North
hemisphery, please do it.

And tell us how you do it.

I'm really curious as how you define "clockwise" without any cultural
reference... Really...

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Just as what I suggested in a parallel topic.

We just need two words (after all, we have pairs: south-north, left-right).

So two more words are:

x1 is rotating clockwise on axis x2 in reference frame x3.

x1 is rotating counterclockwise on axis x2 in reference frame x3.

Those are important enough to have something at gismu/fu'ivla-IV/zi'evla level.

The cultural bias is gone.

[Escape Landsome]

> W1 = x1 is rotating clockwise on axis x2 in reference frame x3.
> W2 = x1 is rotating counterclockwise on axis x2 in reference frame x3.

Let's admit that, but the meanings of W1 and W2 are cultural.

How do I know something turns clockwise --- that is, how do I explain
it to some distant alien ???

If I say that the rotation vector is some Z which is (X x Y), then I
must explain how to carry the vectorial product in such a way that I
notify that the Z direction is the one of my middle finger when my
thumb plays X's role, and my second finger Y' role, with my right
hand, for instance...

Which is totally untractable for a alien living in Andromeda, or in a
mirror-reversed world.

Thus, this explanation is CULTURALLY biased.

Another explanation invoking the rotation direction of an ORDINARY
clock, or of the Sun in MY hemisphery,... would be of course cultural
too...

[Escape Landsome]

Just to be more precise, I don't really catch what you term a "reference frame".

If a reference frame means the move of the Sun somewhere, etc., it
still needs a cultural element, connecting it with some ways of
measurement agreeing with what we know of our usual euclidean space.

(That is : nature of right or left hand, and so on)

If I refer to my right hand, this is culturally connected to my
biological nature. If I refer to my usual clock, this has to do with
the convention in the state where I live (in old times, there existed
two types of clocks, and the "clockwise" of one region was the
"counterclockwise" of another).

Thus, I suggest (but that's maybe what you intended to suggest) that
the two words be :

W1 = x1 is clockwise in frame x2 relatively to cultural usage x3
W2 = x2 is counterclockwise in frame x2 relatively to cultural usage x3

.

The other annoying thing is that the physic symmetry clockwise versus
counterclockwise (that is some symmetry of (+1 or -1) determinant for
a polar vector) is a Z/2Z symmetry, that is, it has only two different
possible values.

So we can get rid of it by creating two new words (I can't see whether
you want them to be two unrelated words, to avoid cultural bias --- or
not).

Assume someday a physicist finds a 23-fold symmetry in nature, we'll
have to add to lojban lexicon 23 new words (and perhaps, 23 unrelated
ones).

This is not what I call a sane solution

[MorphemeAddict]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe something like {prityfalgu'o} and {zulfalgu'o}?

That's fairly inaccurate. Rotation has nothing to with gravity, and falling /requires/ it. It is perfectly possible for something to move/rotate in a clockwise direction without falling. Every celestial body that isn't rotating counter-clockwise does it. (technically: the rotation of the Earth has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth is perpetually falling toward Sol.)

What is the standard for determining north/right-left? 

Whether Earth (and other bodies in space) rotate and revolve clockwise or counterclockwise is purely arbitrary, 50/50. But once any one thing is determined to be north, everything else follows. 

How about using chirality as the basis of a definition? 

stevo 

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[MorphemeAddict]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:51 PM, MorphemeAddict <lyt...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:24 AM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:18 AM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Maybe something like {prityfalgu'o} and {zulfalgu'o}?

That's fairly inaccurate. Rotation has nothing to with gravity, and falling /requires/ it. It is perfectly possible for something to move/rotate in a clockwise direction without falling. Every celestial body that isn't rotating counter-clockwise does it. (technically: the rotation of the Earth has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth is perpetually falling toward Sol.)

What is the standard for determining north/right-left? 

Whether Earth (and other bodies in space) rotate and revolve clockwise or counterclockwise is purely arbitrary, 50/50. But once any one thing is determined to be north, everything else follows. 

How about using chirality as the basis of a definition? 

Or, as someone has already mentioned, the basic righthandedness of humans? 

The fact that an object has a top and bottom does not in any way determine whether that object spins left or right. 

stevo

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

On Friday 10 August 2012 03:32:53 la .lindar. wrote:
> What sort of thing would you put in the x3 of carna that would seem valid.

lo terdi cu carna lo jendu lo berti .i lo junla cu carna lo jendu lo bitmu .i
lo xislu be lo karce cu carna lo jendu lo zunle be lo karce

mu'omi'e .pier.

Those examples don't work, because in each of them you give a reference point for the x3, and in none of them do you give a direction. (That said, if carna's definition was the one I talked ab out last night, all of them would be perfect examples.)

[Jonathan Jones]

I literally justs copied this from the Wikipedia page:

"In a mathematical sense, a circle defined parametrically in a positive Cartesian plane by the equations x = cos t and y = sin t is traced counterclockwise as t increases in value."

That's pure math right there.

[Jonathan Jones]

It appears from your statement the you're making the obviously invalid assumption that these peoples would have a common language with us. It is a near certainty that not only would any beings we encounter /not/ speak any of our languages, would likely not share any of our values, and possibly not even experience events in a similar manner to us. It goes without saying that in order to have successful communication with ETs, we would have to first find and then build upon common ground.

Which is why all of the scientists who are actively involved in potential communication with extraterrestrial intelligent life forms have determined long, long ago to use mathematics as the starting point, as math is universal, and nearly everything in existence can be described by a mathematical formula. (Mathematicians will say EVERYTHING can, not just nearly, but they haven't figured out the formulas for it all yet, so I withhold judgement.) No matter where you go in the universe, 2+2=4, regardless of the names you use for the numbers or operations.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Escape Landsome <esca...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just to be more precise, I don't really catch what you term a "reference frame".

A reference frame is a specific point of observation at which the events take place as described.

Regarding rotational motion, the reference frame is the 3D cubic space minimally containing the object. The axis of rotation, if extended past the boundary of the cube, will intersect with two faces. We will call those the "top" and "bottom" faces.

For most objects, the identity of the "top" face is obvious, as it corresponds to the top of the object itself. For others, such as Earth, one must be chosen (North).

If you were to orient yourself in such a way as to be looking at the object through the "top" face, you would then be in the reference frame to see the object rotating clockwise.

All that is needed to establish a reference frame when describing rotational motion is the identity of the "top" of the object.

(Also note that if one person identifies one end of the axis as "top", and another identifies the opposite end as "top", when one describes the motion as clockwise, the other will describe it as counter-clockwise, and vice versa.)

As an example, take a top, turn it upside down, and spin it by turning your hand clockwise. Since the top is upside down, you label the pointy end as "top", and say the top is spinning clockwise. Your friend, however, labels the stick end as "top" because the top of something doesn't change due to external orientation, and says the top is spinning counter clockwise. Neither of you are wrong, because you're using two different reference frames.

[Krzysztof Sobolewski]

Dnia piątek, 10 sierpnia 2012 o 22:04:08 Jonathan Jones napisał(a):

> I literally justs copied this from the Wikipedia page:
>
> "In a mathematical sense, a circle defined parametrically in a positive

> Cartesian plane<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system#Orientation_and_.22handedness.22>by
> the equations
> *x* = cos *t* and *y* = sin *t* is traced counterclockwise as *t* increases

> in value."
>
> That's pure math right there.

That's pure *western* math. Your arbitrary choice of one mathematics is not culturally neutral ;)
--
Ecce Jezuch
"Let me say Pepsi generation; A few lines of misinformation
Watch your money flow away oh so quick; To kill yourself properly
Coke is it" - P. Ratajczyk AKA P. Steele

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Krzysztof Sobolewski <jez...@interia.pl> wrote:

Dnia piątek, 10 sierpnia 2012 o 22:04:08 Jonathan Jones napisał(a):

> I literally justs copied this from the Wikipedia page:
>
> "In a mathematical sense, a circle defined parametrically in a positive

> Cartesian plane<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system#Orientation_and_.22handedness.22>by
> the equations
> *x* = cos *t* and *y* = sin *t* is traced counterclockwise as *t* increases

> in value."
>
> That's pure math right there.

That's pure *western* math. Your arbitrary choice of one mathematics is not culturally neutral ;)

Ha ha, funny.

[la .lindar.]

Escape Landsome, you're not contributing to the conversation by misunderstanding basic concepts and then arguing against opinions nobody has. Nobody was claiming to know of a culturally-neutral word for "clockwise", therefore nobody is inclined to prove it. The entire topic of this conversation is precisely about whether or not we *can* come up with such a thing. Also, how do you not understand what a reference frame is? If the north end of the earth is pointed toward you, it appears to be spinning anticlockwise, but if the south end is pointed toward you, it appears to be spinning clockwise. How is that not obvious and intrinsic to the concept to you?

Back to the point, can we come up with the *least* wrong answer *right now* so I have something to use at all?

Is anybody going to misunderstand {carna fi lo pritu} if we apply Powell's Principle?

I really need anything, so if you have an answer that's less incorrect, please let me know.

[Jonathan Jones]

What's Powell's Principle?
 

I really need anything, so if you have an answer that's less incorrect, please let me know.

The only thing I can think of that may be less incorrect is {carna fi li [ma'u/ni'u]}, but it requires an understanding of polar notation to get.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Escape Landsome, you're not contributing to the conversation by misunderstanding basic concepts and then arguing against opinions nobody has. Nobody was claiming to know of a culturally-neutral word for "clockwise", therefore nobody is inclined to prove it. The entire topic of this conversation is precisely about whether or not we *can* come up with such a thing. Also, how do you not understand what a reference frame is? If the north end of the earth is pointed toward you, it appears to be spinning anticlockwise, but if the south end is pointed toward you, it appears to be spinning clockwise. How is that not obvious and intrinsic to the concept to you?

Back to the point, can we come up with the *least* wrong answer *right now* so I have something to use at all?

Is anybody going to misunderstand {carna fi lo pritu} if we apply Powell's Principle?

What's Powell's Principle?
 

I really need anything, so if you have an answer that's less incorrect, please let me know.

The only thing I can think of that may be less incorrect is {carna fi li [ma'u/ni'u]}, but it requires an understanding of polar notation to get.

Oh yes, and no matter what you use, you'll still have to add {...ci'e lodu'u X cu galraipau} if it isn't obvious.

[la .lindar.]

What's Powell's Principle?

"Robin Powell's Principle of Non-gluteality"

Don't be an ass.

Essentially the same as Wheaton's Law, but specifically regarding the interpretation of an expression using available context. 

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:11 PM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

Escape Landsome, you're not contributing to the conversation by misunderstanding basic concepts and then arguing against opinions nobody has. Nobody was claiming to know of a culturally-neutral word for "clockwise", therefore nobody is inclined to prove it. The entire topic of this conversation is precisely about whether or not we *can* come up with such a thing. Also, how do you not understand what a reference frame is? If the north end of the earth is pointed toward you, it appears to be spinning anticlockwise, but if the south end is pointed toward you, it appears to be spinning clockwise. How is that not obvious and intrinsic to the concept to you?

Back to the point, can we come up with the *least* wrong answer *right now* so I have something to use at all?

Is anybody going to misunderstand {carna fi lo pritu} if we apply Powell's Principle?

What's Powell's Principle?
 

I really need anything, so if you have an answer that's less incorrect, please let me know.

The only thing I can think of that may be less incorrect is {carna fi li [ma'u/ni'u]}, but it requires an understanding of polar notation to get.

Oh yes, and no matter what you use, you'll still have to add {...ma'i* lodu'u X cu galraipau} if it isn't obvious.

*correction: ma'i, not ci'e.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:48 PM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

What's Powell's Principle?

"Robin Powell's Principle of Non-gluteality"

Don't be an ass.

How am I being an ass? I've honestly never heard of it before now.
 

Essentially the same as Wheaton's Law, but specifically regarding the interpretation of an expression using available context.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 6:48 PM, la .lindar. <lindar...@gmail.com> wrote:

What's Powell's Principle?

"Robin Powell's Principle of Non-gluteality"

Don't be an ass.

How am I being an ass? I've honestly never heard of it before now.

Oh. That's the principle. .u'i

Essentially the same as Wheaton's Law, but specifically regarding the interpretation of an expression using available context.

--

mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

[Pierre Abbat]

On Friday 10 August 2012 16:02:46 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> > On Friday 10 August 2012 03:32:53 la .lindar. wrote:
> > > What sort of thing would you put in the x3 of carna that would seem
> >
> > valid.
> >
> > lo terdi cu carna lo jendu lo berti .i lo junla cu carna lo jendu lo
> > bitmu .i
> > lo xislu be lo karce cu carna lo jendu lo zunle be lo karce
> >
> > mu'omi'e .pier.
>
> Those examples don't work, because in each of them you give a reference
> point for the x3, and in none of them do you give a direction. (That said,
> if carna's definition was the one I talked ab out last night, all of them
> would be perfect examples.)

The direction is from the clock, along its axis, into the wall, which
corresponds to a direction of rotation by the convention of holding the right
hand so that its thumb is along the axis and the other fingers curl in the
direction of rotation.

Pierre
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

[Jonathan Jones]

No, that's not what I mean. You don't specify which direction the objects are rotating. The "direction" you're talking about is the reference point.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

On Friday 10 August 2012 16:02:46 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> > On Friday 10 August 2012 03:32:53 la .lindar. wrote:
> > > What sort of thing would you put in the x3 of carna that would seem
> >
> > valid.
> >
> > lo terdi cu carna lo jendu lo berti .i lo junla cu carna lo jendu lo
> > bitmu .i
> > lo xislu be lo karce cu carna lo jendu lo zunle be lo karce
> >
> > mu'omi'e .pier.
>
> Those examples don't work, because in each of them you give a reference
> point for the x3, and in none of them do you give a direction. (That said,
> if carna's definition was the one I talked ab out last night, all of them
> would be perfect examples.)

The direction is from the clock, along its axis, into the wall, which
corresponds to a direction of rotation by the convention of holding the right
hand so that its thumb is along the axis and the other fingers curl in the
direction of rotation.

No, that's not what I mean. You don't specify which direction the objects are rotating. The "direction" you're talking about is the reference point.

Okay, wait, I missed the "...corresponds to a direction of rotation...." the first time I read it. Still, your x3's only work if you follow that convention, which requires you to /know/ it in the first place. I don't know how known it is, but I'd certainly not heard of it before you mentioned it, which leads me to believe "very well" is not the answer.

It is a neat way to shove the reference point and direction of rotation together, even though it always means "counterclockwise".

[Escape Landsome]

>> "In a mathematical sense, a circle defined parametrically in a positive
>> Cartesian
>> plane<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian_coordinate_system#Orientation_and_.22handedness.22>by
>> the equations
>> *x* = cos *t* and *y* = sin *t* is traced counterclockwise as *t*
>> increases
>> in value."
>>
>> That's pure math right there.

Well, that's Wikipedia maths.

In University and Ecole Normale, we are taught tensor algebra, which
clearly states that the notion of clockwise and counterclockwise is
arbitrary. If the only thing you can oppose to me is a commonplace
cyclopedia collected by amateurs, and not the works of high-status
mathematicians, then I consider you have contributed no critique at
all.

Buy a book of high grade mathematics, and come back later.

[Escape Landsome]

.

To put it simply, you may say that CLOCKWISE and COUNTER-CLOCKWISE are
defined is LEFT and RIGHT are, or if DIRECT and REVERSE FRAMES are.

Let's say that X = (1,0,0), Y = (0,1,0) and Z = (0,0,1) are a direct
frame (X,Y,Z).

Then (X,Z,Y) (or any simple transposition of (X,Y,Z) is a reverse
frame. (indirect frame)

Det (X,Y,Z) = +1

Det(X,Z,Y) = -1

Two frames are oriented the same way if they have the same Det

Two frames are oriented opposite ways if theirs Det are opposite

Now, the STRANGE thing you learn in Tensor algebra is that there is no
way to tell Det, outside a convention.

One COULD decide that it is (X,Y,Z) that has Det = -1, after all !

Then it would be (X,Z,Y) that has Det = +1

The only thing that remains STABLE in all this is that their Dets are opposite !
(since there is a transposition of Y and Z between (X,Y,Z) and (X,Z,Y))

---

Now, human beings and physicists in particular need a way to compute Det.

So they CREATE A WAY to compute some Det, by STATING that X, Y and Z
are "normally" in those directions we know.

But, --- hold on, this is the difficult point where most people can't
follow the reasonning ---, there is no way to specify this out of a
convention rooted in OUR EXPERIENCE OF OUR DAILY UNIVERSE, that is, in
OUR BODY and OUR CULTURE.

For, saying that X is defined as (1,0,0), Y as (0,1,0) and Z as
(0,0,1) does not mean anything sensible in the absolute. It means
somethings SENSIBLE only if we have SENSES that tell us, for instance,
that X direction is the sense of my right hand thumb, Y my right hand
index, and Z my right hand middle finger...

THEN, it becomes sensible

But, without that, it would be possible to trace the Z-axis in
opposite direction, and Z would still be (0,0,1), --- but you would
say "clockwise" and I would see "counterclockwise".

---

So, to get the coordinate system sensible, you need to root them in an
experience.

Kant's experience of a right hand means that if you write down the set
of all points pertaining to a right hand, R = { (x1,y1,z1),
(x2,y2,z2), (x3,y3,z3), ... }

you still have no clue whether R is a right hand or a left hand, until
you have not decided to set an orientation to space --- which is what
space does NOT have per se.

ORIENTATION does NOT pertain to space, as all mathematicians and
kantians know (and wittgenstenians too, and carrollians too).
ORIENTATION comes only through convention.

---

No, I'm in holiday, so I do not have books with me currently, so we'll
have to wait a month or so till I can give you extracts of high maths
books (or philosophy books) that speak of that, but all this is known
for long by scholars.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

May be I missed something in this conversation but (lindar will confirm) I didn't want to join this discussion yesterday until I could figure out everything myself. I even said in chat "Think 100 times before suggesting any new gismu".

Still la lindar posted eir message to the list and I had to reply to it.

So let's get back to business.

The scrutiny shows that {carna} has everything that we need.

Here is my solution.

1. Take a clock from the wall.

2. Put it on the floor.

3. Sit on top of the clock. Just in the middle of the clock! Be careful not to break something in the mechanism.

4. Look at the hands (pointers) of the clock.

5. See? They are moving to the right of your point in space! Every atom of the hand of the clock is moving to the right.

6. Now stand up and put the clock to the wall.

7. Wow! The hand is no longer moving to the right. It's moving clockwise!

So {carna fi lo pritu} means "rotate clockwise".

Now what is {se carna}?

Here we have a minor problem.

When you were sitting on the clock you were the upper part of the axis, namely the part sticking out of the front of the clock.

By the word "front" I mean that part that has digits painted on it and hands moving.

What is "front"? What is "face"?

These are two-dimensional but one-side objects (like Möbius band or something).

You can't look at my face from the other side. You will simply see the back of my head.

This is what we need.

{carna lo crane lo pritu}.

May be the definition of {carna} is really not an ideal one but I no longer support any new gismu for "clockwise".

It's better to clarify {carna} definition, may be  change it to 
x1 turns or rotates around from the viewpoint (reference frame) of x2 in direction x3

This has also to do with the concept of the "line of sight".

Humans have it and this is what "reference frame" usually refers to.

We look forward and see the hands of the clock moving.

Even if we are blind we have such body orientation (including mouth, nose, limbs etc) so that we are still oriented forward.

What if we had eyes on our backs: {pritu} has also "frame of reference" place. Therefore, two ref-frames annihilate (sumti/sumti=1) and we are culturally neutral again.

You might argue: what if spiders that have eyes on their limbs learnt Lojban? Would that be culturaly neutral?

We must think about them too!

The answer is pretty clear.

If you have an eye on your leg please use reference frame and specify which of your multiple eyes is looking at the clock.

Still we have "line of sight" left. I think that every human or probably every animal has such feature. I can't imagine any creature without "lines-of-sensory-input". All sensory organs work that way. Therefore, I state that it's culturally neutral.

I haven't read all the conversation. So may be somebody has already understood this.

Thanks for your attention anyway.

[.arpis.]

Escape, you are being needlessly confrontational (and somewhat
condescending), and it is not helping to make your point.

To contrast your point, in high school and university in the US, we
are taught basic calculus and basic physics, and it is made clear that
some arbitrary sign convention is necessary, and positive is chosen to
denote counterclockwise angles. This is a thoroughly shared
cross-cultural framework, and it's useful.

Also, you seem to be arguing a point that no-one is disputing. We are
trying to find a good (arbitrary) convention, which is present across
(or at least apparent to) various cultures; we are not trying to find
an absolute frame of reference.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[Jonathan Jones]

Your tone is dismissive and inflammatory, serves no useful or beneficial purpose to anyone including yourself, and merely provokes a response to be equally dismissive of you /in general/.

It doesn't matter what "grade" of math is being used. (And by the way, it's not "Wikipedia maths". It's a parametric equation, which is calculus. The fact that I found it on Wikipedia is incidental.) You asked for a purely mathematical way of describing rotational motion that distinguishes counter- and clock-wise directions. I have done so.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Escape Landsome <esca...@gmail.com> wrote:

To put it simply....

Congratulations, you have successfully copy-pasted mathematical proofs made by others that direction is completely dependent on the reference frame used to describe it. We know this already.

[.arpis.]

aionys, your tone in this message is no better, and you seem to be
ignoring the fact that there are arbitrary conventions in place for
determining that direction, even in the "purely mathematical"
definition you used.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

May be I missed something in this conversation but (lindar will confirm) I didn't want to join this discussion yesterday until I could figure out everything myself. I even said in chat "Think 100 times before suggesting any new gismu".

Still la lindar posted eir message to the list and I had to reply to it.

So let's get back to business.

The scrutiny shows that {carna} has everything that we need.

Here is my solution.

1. Take a clock from the wall.

2. Put it on the floor.

3. Sit on top of the clock. Just in the middle of the clock! Be careful not to break something in the mechanism.

4. Look at the hands (pointers) of the clock.

5. See? They are moving to the right of your point in space! Every atom of the hand of the clock is moving to the right.

6. Now stand up and put the clock to the wall.

7. Wow! The hand is no longer moving to the right. It's moving clockwise!

So {carna fi lo pritu} means "rotate clockwise".

Now what is {se carna}?

{se carna} is the axis around which the object is rotating. Your following statements seem to think it means something entirely different.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/OkBQuMuKLuoJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 4:21 AM, .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com> wrote:

aionys, your tone in this message is no better,

"... merely provokes a response to be equally dismissive of [Escape] /in general/."
 

and you seem to be
ignoring the fact that there are arbitrary conventions in place for
determining that direction, even in the "purely mathematical"
definition you used.

You could say that, however, regardless of which "arbitrary" conventions are used, which I now dub the "reference frame", to graph an equation, it is possible to devise an equation such that the tracing of it will result in a circle being drawn counter-clockwise.

If we decided to use the Polar reference frame, for instance, the equation is "r=n, n∈(-∞,0)∪(0,∞)".

The fact that a reference frame is needed to describe a direction only proves that a reference frame is need to describe a direction. It does not prove that any such description is flawed or incorrect.
 

[djandus]

I don't have time to go over every post in this thread, especially seeing as it is rather full of people getting offended.

Has anyone brought up the right-hand rule? (for rotations)

That is, for the wheels on a car, I could say:

{lo karce xislu cu carna zo'e lo zunle be lo karce}

because if you were to stick your right thumb to the car's left, your fingers would curl around in the direction of rotation. This is consistent with the overall standard of the right-hand rule, which comes up on this topic via the cross product definition of angular motion. That is, if I were to be asked the "direction" of the angular motion, momentum, or similar, it would be to the car's left. This is arbitrary, but completely standardized in physics.

Similarly, I would say that a top would be {carna zo'e lo gapru} if it were spinning counter-clockwise when viewed from above. If I were to instruct one to remove a screw, I could say {ko cargau lo klupe ku zo'e lo bartu}, because the direction a screw moves and the direction it needs to rotate correspond by the same standard right-hand rule. If I were to use the carna2 spot, the axis would probably be defined with a direction as "positive," after which I could then use {li ni'u}/{li ma'u} in carna3. (This would be the establisment of a coordinate system.) If the axis was given descriptively without a direction, then my other examples illustrate how I would deal with that.

Is there anything terribly wrong with these examples?

mu'o mi'e djos

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 10:11 AM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't have time to go over every post in this thread, especially seeing as it is rather full of people getting offended.

Has anyone brought up the right-hand rule? (for rotations)

That is, for the wheels on a car, I could say:

{lo karce xislu cu carna zo'e lo zunle be lo karce}

because if you were to stick your right thumb to the car's left, your fingers would curl around in the direction of rotation. This is consistent with the overall standard of the right-hand rule, which comes up on this topic via the cross product definition of angular motion. That is, if I were to be asked the "direction" of the angular motion, momentum, or similar, it would be to the car's left. This is arbitrary, but completely standardized in physics.

I believe Pierre did, yes.
 

Similarly, I would say that a top would be {carna zo'e lo gapru} if it were spinning counter-clockwise when viewed from above. If I were to instruct one to remove a screw, I could say {ko cargau lo klupe ku zo'e lo bartu}, because the direction a screw moves and the direction it needs to rotate correspond by the same standard right-hand rule. If I were to use the carna2 spot, the axis would probably be defined with a direction as "positive," after which I could then use {li ni'u}/{li ma'u} in carna3. (This would be the establisment of a coordinate system.) If the axis was given descriptively without a direction, then my other examples illustrate how I would deal with that.

Is there anything terribly wrong with these examples?

mu'o mi'e djos

I don't see anything.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

So Robin entered right-hand rule to Gismu issues page.

Can you provide some examples of it's usage with all places filled in? Is it culturally-neutral (both left and right direction can be equally used)?

btw, lindar started this topic because he NEEDED a way of expressing the concept of "clockwise".

doi loi jbobadna, where are the examples after all?

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 1:04 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

So Robin entered right-hand rule to Gismu issues page.

Can you provide some examples of it's usage with all places filled in? Is it culturally-neutral (both left and right direction can be equally used)?

btw, lindar started this topic because he NEEDED a way of expressing the concept of "clockwise".

doi loi jbobadna, where are the examples after all?

I did a search for carna in the corpus (http://www.lojban.org/corpus/search/carna), specifically to find out if my preferred definition (x1 rotates counter-clockwise on axis x2 in reference frame x3) actually would break past usage, and from what I saw, it's rarely actually used to describe rotational motion, and even when it is, the x3 is either not filled, or filled incorrectly. More often, it's used in the sense "x1 turns towards x3", as in {mi carna fi lo mi zdani vorme}.

The vast majority of uses are with completely unfilled places, as in in a tanru or abstraction.

Robin is of the opinion that we need to "turn" words, one for in things such as "Jeff turned to Sam and said....", and another for rotational motion, as in "The top is spinning counter-clockwise when looked at from above the spindle."

I would agree. I think that in most cases, changing carna to "x1 turns from x2 to x3" would not break past usage, and we could then have a different gismu for rotational motion.
 

On Sunday, August 12, 2012 12:34:00 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 10:11 AM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't have time to go over every post in this thread, especially seeing as it is rather full of people getting offended.

Has anyone brought up the right-hand rule? (for rotations)

That is, for the wheels on a car, I could say:

{lo karce xislu cu carna zo'e lo zunle be lo karce}

because if you were to stick your right thumb to the car's left, your fingers would curl around in the direction of rotation. This is consistent with the overall standard of the right-hand rule, which comes up on this topic via the cross product definition of angular motion. That is, if I were to be asked the "direction" of the angular motion, momentum, or similar, it would be to the car's left. This is arbitrary, but completely standardized in physics.

I believe Pierre did, yes.
 

Similarly, I would say that a top would be {carna zo'e lo gapru} if it were spinning counter-clockwise when viewed from above. If I were to instruct one to remove a screw, I could say {ko cargau lo klupe ku zo'e lo bartu}, because the direction a screw moves and the direction it needs to rotate correspond by the same standard right-hand rule. If I were to use the carna2 spot, the axis would probably be defined with a direction as "positive," after which I could then use {li ni'u}/{li ma'u} in carna3. (This would be the establisment of a coordinate system.) If the axis was given descriptively without a direction, then my other examples illustrate how I would deal with that.

Is there anything terribly wrong with these examples?

mu'o mi'e djos

I don't see anything.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/zs8HlDKVgFwJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[.arpis.]

Right hand rules are a series of mnemonics (usually taught in physics)
for remembering the arbitrary but consistent directions and sign
choices. An example: If the current is flowing in the direction of
your thumb, the electric field is in the direction of your fingers (on
the right hand).
Left hand rules can be used, but negate one sign (in the math
representation) relative to the right hand rules.

A useful right hand rule for lojban might be "the direction your
fingers curl when you point your right thumb at your face"

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/zs8HlDKVgFwJ.
>
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

[John E Clifford]

But you still need to specify which thumb.  Is there no escape from this?

---

From: .arpis. <rpglover...@gmail.com>
To: loj...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, August 12, 2012 10:34 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Direction of Rotation

> lojban+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.



--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[.arpis.]

> But you still need to specify which thumb.

The right one; that's why it's a right hand rule.

> Is there no escape from this?

No, there isn't; as aionus pointed out, you need a reference frame.

>> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
>
>
> --
> mu'o mi'e .arpis.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>
>
>
> --

> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

[vitci'i]

We do have zunle/pritu. But I don't think you do need to specify, as
long as the selbri relating a directed axle to a rotation is
consistent-though-arbitrary.

>> lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

On Sunday, August 12, 2012 8:17:20 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

> But you still need to specify which thumb.

The right one; that's why it's a right hand rule.

> Is there no escape from this?

No, there isn't; as aionus pointed out, you need a reference frame.

Unfortunately, it's not culturally neutral.

If we have {zunle/pritu} we need two words for rotation too: left-hand and right-hand rule.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, August 12, 2012 8:17:20 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

> But you still need to specify which thumb.

The right one; that's why it's a right hand rule.

> Is there no escape from this?

No, there isn't; as aionus pointed out, you need a reference frame.

Unfortunately, it's not culturally neutral.

Yes it is. It's lack of neutrality is not cultural.
 

If we have {zunle/pritu} we need two words for rotation too: left-hand and right-hand rule.

No we don't. We choose one. The other is merely to'e.
 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/z54-hPRQNhMJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--

[vitci'i]

On 08/12/2012 11:15 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, August 12, 2012 8:17:20 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:
>>>
>>>> But you still need to specify which thumb.
>>>
>>> The right one; that's why it's a right hand rule.
>>>
>>>> Is there no escape from this?
>>>
>>> No, there isn't; as aionus pointed out, you need a reference frame.
>>>
>> Unfortunately, it's not culturally neutral.
>>
>
> Yes it is. It's lack of neutrality is not cultural.

Unless, perhaps, someone can cite different existing cultures doing it
differently. But I don't think that's the case.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

On Monday, August 13, 2012 8:15:22 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, August 12, 2012 8:17:20 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:

> But you still need to specify which thumb.

The right one; that's why it's a right hand rule.

> Is there no escape from this?

No, there isn't; as aionus pointed out, you need a reference frame.

Unfortunately, it's not culturally neutral.

Yes it is. It's lack of neutrality is not cultural.

OK, this the lack of symmetry. Why do we have zunle and pritu but dont have left-hand rule? 

[Jonathan Jones]

You don't seem to understand what culturally neutral means. If there is no culture that does a certain thing differently than the other cultures, than us also doing it that way is /not/ culturally biased. In order for it to be biased, it has to be something one (subset) of the various cultures do in this way.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

On Monday, August 13, 2012 8:50:01 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:21 PM, vitci'i <celestial...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 08/12/2012 11:15 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 10:09 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, August 12, 2012 8:17:20 PM UTC+4, .arpis. wrote:
>>>
>>>> But you still need to specify which thumb.
>>>
>>> The right one; that's why it's a right hand rule.
>>>
>>>> Is there no escape from this?
>>>
>>> No, there isn't; as aionus pointed out, you need a reference frame.
>>>
>> Unfortunately, it's not culturally neutral.
>>
>
> Yes it is. It's lack of neutrality is not cultural.

Unless, perhaps, someone can cite different existing cultures doing it
differently. But I don't think that's the case.

You don't seem to understand what culturally neutral means. If there is no culture that does a certain thing differently than the other cultures, than us also doing it that way is /not/ culturally biased. In order for it to be biased, it has to be something one (subset) of the various cultures do in this way.

I understand. Let's wait until such culture is discovered. But I doubt whether there are languages that have separate words for "clockwise" that are not derived from metaphors.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

So Robin made his decision about the place structure.

Now let's find some sounding for it?

How do major (and minor!) languages express this "clockwise" concept?

I can't find anything special. 

1. "clock" metaphor.

2. Earth rotation

3. Screws

So 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockwise

Typical nuts, screws, bolts, and bottle caps are tightened (moved away from the observer) clockwise and loosened (moved towards the observer) counterclockwise, in accordance with the right-hand rule.

In English screw, nut, bolt

In Russian винт, гайка, болт [vint, gaika, bolt]

In Chinese 螺丝，螺母，螺栓 [Luósī, luómǔ, luóshuān]

In Spanish  tornillo, tuerca, perno

In Arabic المسمار، والجوز، والترباس

And I suggest

{bolto} = BOLT + LuO + TOrnillo

It's not my final decision, though.

<rlpowell> my instinct is to object, but I don't think I have any actual good reasons, so: sure, that looks fine. :)

<rlpowell> (that is: using "screw" to mean "rotation" seems odd to me, but I understand your arguments)

Another option is the Earth. Which is even romantic. But why should we stick to the North? Just because we are living in the north hemisphere? What australian jbopre would say?

So these are my thoughts.

.a'o you find other solutions.

[Jonathan Jones]

As far as the word to use, {bolto} seems fine to me. Heck, we could use more ends-in-o words in Lojban, anyway.

More pertinent to me is the actual place structure, definition, of the word. My opinion is that we definitely need a place for identification of the 'top', and there may be occasions where there is a need to specify the rotational axis, but I expect most often not, one of the two directions should be the keyword itself- I don't care which one- with the other being {to'e bolto}, and I don't think the word needs anything else.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

So Robin made his decision about the place structure.

Purely for curiosities' sake, when and where did he make his decision? Was it on IRC? Is there a transcript I could read?

[Gleki Arxokuna]

See Gismu issues changelog in lojban.org wiki.

But anyway you should ask him.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Sorry, I've changed my mind.

Specifying "clockwise" with a metaphor of the Sun that is moving on the sky is adequate in the northern hemisphere only. Yes, it's not fair.

But why not directly refer to what hemisphere we are in ?!!

1. In the Northern hemisphere the Sun and the stars move clockwise east to south to west. Therefore, it can be called the Southern Rotating Sky.

2. In the Southern hemisphere the situation is the opposite.

Now about sounding.

I'll do something which won't follow the algorithm of creating gismu. You must understand me. I'm creating a new complex concept. I want something common for at least one nation, Chinese nation. English and Spanish words are too long. And I don't want to average sounds of 6 languages because it's me who suggests this concept. And it would be stupid to average something that is absent in those languages.

So in Mandarin

nan2 - south

ri4 - the Sun (some may argue that it's actually pronounced as [zhi] but as in lojban it's {solri} I'll retain it as [r])

zhuan4 - to revolve [pronounced actually as {djuan} in lojban notation]

i.e we have "nan-ri-juan"

which (no surprise) results in {nanju}.

For southern hemisphere we have Northern Rotating Sky and counterclockwise movement.

bei3 - north 

"bei-ri-juan" results in {berju/berja}. ({berju} is better as it ends in the same letters as {nanju}).

Therefore, I suggest using {nanju} for clockwise.

{berju} should be saved as a reserved word for future generations (who knows what they'll say? We must reserve some space for them). Until then for counterclockwise we can use modifications of {nanju}.

Is it neutral? Yes. Lojban was created on the Earth. Therefore solar metaphor is nevertheless a global metaphor for the whole planet. On other planets sapient creatures may not even be able to pronounce our phonemes so they'll create lojban clone with different sounding. No conflict here.

Objections to my proposal in general?

[djandus]

On Monday, August 13, 2012 5:07:41 AM UTC-5, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:

See Gismu issues changelog in lojban.org wiki.

You mean here? He seems to be advocating the usage of two words, one for "turning" and one for "rotating", which I advocate. You seem to be discussing the use of two different words for "rotating", which I don't. Later, in your latest email, you seem to mention saving the second word for now, which is a good idea.

In general, I don't care what gismu is chosen, as long as one is. However, I'm still afraid you've defined the wrong word. That is, we need counterclockwise, as these two definitions are equivalent:

x1 is spinning about axis x2 such that if your right hand's fingers are curling in the direction of rotation, your thumb would be pointing in direction x3 (along the x2 axis).

from the BPFK page, and

x1 is spinning counter-clockwise about axis x2 seen from side/perspective x3.

Also, if we're actually making a new word, I'd like to mention something. I generally find the axis usage clunky and rarely necessary, as it is often easier to give a more specific direction than an axis, in English or Lojban alike. Thus, the axis spot is mainly useful wrapped in {lo SE broda ku}. Shouldn't the x3 spot be the axis, then?

[Jonathan Jones]

1: Basing the word for rotational motion on the apparent path of objects in the sky is even more of a giant leap than basing it on the action of tightening/loosening a screw. TOO big a leap.

2: We DON'T need two words. There are exactly two direction of rotational motion- [direction] and to'e[direction].
 

More pertinent to me is the actual place structure, definition, of the word. My opinion is that we definitely need a place for identification of the 'top', and there may be occasions where there is a need to specify the rotational axis, but I expect most often not, one of the two directions should be the keyword itself- I don't care which one- with the other being {to'e bolto}, and I don't think the word needs anything else.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/BgQpNcW97VUJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

doi.djos., what's your opinion of this definition, then?

x1 is rotating counter-clockwise viewed from orientation x2 about rotational axis/axes (set if multiple) x3

For the actual word itself, since it seems to me that Gleki's going way off on the wrong track, here's my contribution:

(I got these words from Google translate, so don't yell at me if any are wrong.)
Chinese: lunliu
Hindi: gumai
English: rotait
Spanish: xirar
Russian: vraciat
Arabic: tonauibu

I asked Broca to run the algorithm on the above, and we got this:
(2.2040000000000002, 'gutni', [3.0, 3.0, 2.0, 0.0, 0.0, 3.0])
(2.0789999999999997, 'ramli', [2.0, 2.0, 3.0, 2.0, 3.0, 0.0])
(2.0339999999999998, 'ralni', [3.0, 0.0, 3.0, 2.0, 3.0, 0.0])
(2.0339999999999998, 'ranli', [3.0, 0.0, 3.0, 2.0, 3.0, 0.0])
(1.9769999999999999, 'glani', [3.0, 3.0, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0, 2.0])

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:18 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 1:16 PM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

[...]Also, if we're actually making a new word, I'd like to mention something. I generally find the axis usage clunky and rarely necessary, as it is often easier to give a more specific direction than an axis, in English or Lojban alike. Thus, the axis spot is mainly useful wrapped in {lo SE broda ku}. Shouldn't the x3 spot be the axis, then?

x1 is rotating counter-clockwise viewed from orientation x2 about rotational axis/axes (set if multiple) x3

Regarding the axis bit: The typical axis of rotation is the (imaginary) line perpendicular to the plane of rotational motion that intersects the center of gravity of the rotating object, so we only need to actually specify the axis when it /isn't/, such as, say, the opening of a door (where the axis is on one end of the object), or elliptical orbits (where there is more than one axis).

[Jorge Llambías]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He seems to be advocating the usage of two words, one for
> "turning" and one for "rotating", which I advocate.

Could someone explain why the same word can't be used for both? The
main difference seems to be that "turn" usually doesn't require a full
revolution, while "rotate" usually requires many revolutions. but
can't that be distinguished by some other means? We probably need a
word for "revolution" ("carlai"?) then we can specify the fraction or
number of revolutions involved with a spatial tense. Also "turn" is
often volitional, while "rotate" isn't. Is that part of the proposed
difference?

"zulcarna" and "pritycarna" have been used before for laevorotation
and dextrorotation. Why are they inadequate?

I found a couple of discussions about it from prehistoric times (1995 and 2000):

http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9509/msg00116.html

http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/4728

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Attention please!

I was trying to create a word for "clockwise"/"counterclockwise".

solar metaphor is good because this is what ancient people used.

It's global and universal for the whole planet.

As for "turn to the left/right" I didn't do any work.

As yesterday Robin said that "rotate in general" without specifying clockwise or counterclockwise was also a concept then we needed.

So for now I'm not proposing any new gismu.

{bolto,nanju,berju} are obsolete.

Let's get back to discussing places once again.

May be we can revise my suggestion of {carna fi lo pritu/zunle} with modified x2 once again?

[djandus]

On Monday, August 13, 2012 5:19:24 PM UTC-5, xorxes wrote:

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He seems to be advocating the usage of two words, one for
> "turning" and one for "rotating", which I advocate.

Could someone explain why the same word can't be used for both?

The difference is subtle, but more apparent in Lojban place structure. For "rotate," we want a place structure focusing on a continuing rotation, so we focus on the direction of rotation and axis. For "turn," we want a place structure focusing on a short rotation, so we focus on the initial and final "angular positions" -- which way the object is facing at the beginning and end. Robin's example was saying "I turn to face you." -- The only way I can think of to say that now is something like {mi vo'a cargau mu'i lo nu do mi crane}, which I guess isn't too terrible, now that I think about it. In fact, {cargau} seems really good for "opening a door" or "unscrewing a bolt" which I believe were other discussed problem sentences.

Is that part of the proposed difference?

I'm pretty sure it is. 

"zulcarna" and "pritycarna" have been used before for laevorotation
and dextrorotation. Why are they inadequate?

That sounds like gibberish to me, but I understand the fundamental issue to be that carna3 had a pretty unknown usage since it requires an arbitrary "clockwise" or "counterclockwise" implication to be useful. Thus, any lujvo based off it are equally arbitrary, and redefining the gismu seems advantageous. I'd like to take a step back for a moment and meditate on why we're making a new word at all. There's a lot here to digest, and a lot that doesn't make sense.

aionys said a while ago that changing {carna} to the "turning" definition would actually be more likely to fix previous usage:

More often, it's used in the sense "x1 turns towards x3", as in {mi carna fi lo mi zdani vorme}.

I looked over the corpus link he provided and couldn't find any good, clear uses of carna2/carna3 that didn't seem like someone testing usage / asking about usage. In other words, it seems to me like everyone's been in the same boat of "umm... how do I use this, exactly?"

doi aionys, could you discuss the exact examples that preclude the definition of {carna} we somewhat like, that "x1 rotates counter-clockwise about axis x2 from perspective x3"? Or which specific examples support the "turning" definition? (I only found one like that, and it seemed like Robin using it, wanting it to mean that or thinking it did.)

I feel that this is critical to this discussion:

• If previous usage of place structure is minimal to nonexistent, then it makes perfect sense to redefine carna as close to "x1 rotates counterclockwise from perspective x2 about axis x3" as possible, so as to not break existing lujvo. Then {cargau} could be used for "turning" in the sense Robin wants. I'd also toss about the idea of using {barcarna} fa'u {nercarna} for "revolve" fa'u "rotate".
  
• If previous usage of place structure actually points to a particular definition significantly, then we should take that into account accordingly.

ji'a doi aionys, I think that the idea of multiple axes is very interesting. So you know, how you are thinking about using the axis place makes no sense to me from my physics background, but I find it very interesting as it actually might make the axis place useful. Also, it seems mathematically consistent. With current place structure, but your axis usage, it seems that:

{carna lo bartu} refers to revolution

{carna lo nenri} refers to rotation

{carna re lo bartu} refers to elliptical revolution

{carna re lo nenri} refers to ... elliptical rotation? That actually kind of makes sense, in a very weird way.

{carna ci da} refers to... what? I'm looking into this. Thoroughly intriguing. The extension I'm using now gives a beautiful shape, IMO. (That is, in 2-dim, given "axis" points a, b, c, and the scalar r, the set of {x for which |x-a| + |x-b| + |x-c| = r} gives something that looks like an ellipse with three foci.) I made some pictures of circles, ellipses, and 3-foci things with this extension.

Also, what about the issue that axes are lines? The ellipse extension assumes parallel lines -- what would nonparallel lines indicate? (It doesn't have to indicate anything, mind you. It is mathematically interesting, however.)

[MorphemeAddict]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Attention please!

I was trying to create a word for "clockwise"/"counterclockwise".

solar metaphor is good because this is what ancient people used.

It's global and universal for the whole planet.

How is this metaphor adequate? The sun always rises in the east, but how do you distinguish north from south? 

stevo

 

As for "turn to the left/right" I didn't do any work.

As yesterday Robin said that "rotate in general" without specifying clockwise or counterclockwise was also a concept then we needed.

So for now I'm not proposing any new gismu.

{bolto,nanju,berju} are obsolete.

Let's get back to discussing places once again.

May be we can revise my suggestion of {carna fi lo pritu/zunle} with modified x2 once again?
On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 2:19:24 AM UTC+4, xorxes wrote:

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He seems to be advocating the usage of two words, one for
> "turning" and one for "rotating", which I advocate.

Could someone explain why the same word can't be used for both? The
main difference seems to be that "turn" usually doesn't require a full
revolution, while "rotate" usually requires many revolutions. but
can't that be distinguished by some other means? We probably need a
word for "revolution" ("carlai"?) then we can specify the fraction or
number of revolutions involved with a spatial tense. Also "turn" is
often volitional, while "rotate" isn't. Is that part of the proposed
difference?

"zulcarna" and "pritycarna" have been used before for laevorotation
and dextrorotation. Why are they inadequate?

I found a couple of discussions about it from prehistoric times (1995 and 2000):

http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9509/msg00116.html

http://tech.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/4728

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/lBhgTBX7mjwJ.

[djandus]

I'd also toss about the idea of using {barcarna} fa'u {nercarna} for "revolve" fa'u "rotate".

Holy CRAP, I should never let my math brain take over at midnight. My physics brain just kicked me and reminded me that the semantic difference between rotation and revolution is whether the particles of the object are being treated in a set or a mass, put psuedo-lojbanically. That is, a moon "revolves around a planet" because it orbits the planet as one object, irrespective of the individual particles' motion. (The "set" in this case has a "center of mass" property, I guess.) All moons "rotate about an internal axis" because the individual particles are rotating about the moon's axis. The Earth's moon also happens to "rotate about the Earth" as the same side always faces Earth.

However, {nercarna} still makes sense as a rotation/turn, as the internals are doing the rotating.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:29:33 AM UTC+4, stevo wrote:

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Attention please!

I was trying to create a word for "clockwise"/"counterclockwise".

solar metaphor is good because this is what ancient people used.

It's global and universal for the whole planet.

How is this metaphor adequate? The sun always rises in the east, but how do you distinguish north from south? 

In northern hemisphere the Sun goes east-south-west.

In southern hemisphere the Sun goes west-north-east. 

We have gismu for north and south, by the way.

[MorphemeAddict]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:29:33 AM UTC+4, stevo wrote:

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Attention please!

I was trying to create a word for "clockwise"/"counterclockwise".

solar metaphor is good because this is what ancient people used.

It's global and universal for the whole planet.

How is this metaphor adequate? The sun always rises in the east, but how do you distinguish north from south? 

In northern hemisphere the Sun goes east-south-west.

In southern hemisphere the Sun goes west-north-east. 

We have gismu for north and south, by the way.

In both hemispheres the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Only the north/south is different. 

You totally ignored the question. How do you distinguish north from south? I know which is which by convention, but that doesn't help to distinguish them in a mirror. 

stevo  

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/K9uJ4_mkkRcJ.

[djandus]

In northern hemisphere the Sun goes east-south-west.

In southern hemisphere the Sun goes west-north-east. 

So?

The sun deviating from directly above at noonish is barely noticeable for most of the world.

Do you call the first with "north" because it's in the northern hemisphere, or "south" because that's the direction of sun-deviation?

Do you call the first "clockwise" because it runs east-south-west on the compass rose, or "counter-clockwise" because that's what the sun looks like, looking up at the sky?

[Gleki Arxokuna]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:38:37 AM UTC+4, stevo wrote:

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:29:33 AM UTC+4, stevo wrote:

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:11 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Attention please!

I was trying to create a word for "clockwise"/"counterclockwise".

solar metaphor is good because this is what ancient people used.

It's global and universal for the whole planet.

How is this metaphor adequate? The sun always rises in the east, but how do you distinguish north from south? 

In northern hemisphere the Sun goes east-south-west.

In southern hemisphere the Sun goes west-north-east. 

We have gismu for north and south, by the way.

In both hemispheres the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Only the north/south is different. 

.u'u .ie 

You totally ignored the question. How do you distinguish north from south? I know which is which by convention, but that doesn't help to distinguish them in a mirror. 

I based my gismu on existing gismu for north and south that POSTULATE what is north and what is south.

Anyway, if we need a gismu for rotation in general my proposals are no longer acceptable.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

So please have a look at my suggestion  once again.

aionys was right, it's not our old {carna}. It's something new.

Robin asked "Yes, but what about objects that don't have clear <face>. e.g. imagine a rotating rod".

In this case we must define a plane in the middle of the axis perpendicular to the axis.

Then we have line-of-sight above the plane spreading to the plane.

In the image attached we can see that according to what the eye (marked with "line of sight") sees

the rod is rotating to the right.

So in such gismu we need a place for direction of rotation filled with "zunle/pritu". If this placed is not filled then the gismu would mean "rotating in general".

On Saturday, August 11, 2012 12:45:34 PM UTC+4, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:

May be I missed something in this conversation but (lindar will confirm) I didn't want to join this discussion yesterday until I could figure out everything myself. I even said in chat "Think 100 times before suggesting any new gismu".

Still la lindar posted eir message to the list and I had to reply to it.

So let's get back to business.

The scrutiny shows that {carna} has everything that we need.

Here is my solution.

1. Take a clock from the wall.

2. Put it on the floor.

3. Sit on top of the clock. Just in the middle of the clock! Be careful not to break something in the mechanism.

4. Look at the hands (pointers) of the clock.

5. See? They are moving to the right of your point in space! Every atom of the hand of the clock is moving to the right.

6. Now stand up and put the clock to the wall.

7. Wow! The hand is no longer moving to the right. It's moving clockwise!

So {carna fi lo pritu} means "rotate clockwise".

Now what is {se carna}?

Here we have a minor problem.

When you were sitting on the clock you were the upper part of the axis, namely the part sticking out of the front of the clock.

By the word "front" I mean that part that has digits painted on it and hands moving.

What is "front"? What is "face"?

These are two-dimensional but one-side objects (like Möbius band or something).

You can't look at my face from the other side. You will simply see the back of my head.

This is what we need.

{carna lo crane lo pritu}.

May be the definition of {carna} is really not an ideal one but I no longer support any new gismu for "clockwise".

It's better to clarify {carna} definition, may be  change it to 
x1 turns or rotates around from the viewpoint (reference frame) of x2 in direction x3

This has also to do with the concept of the "line of sight".

Humans have it and this is what "reference frame" usually refers to.

We look forward and see the hands of the clock moving.

Even if we are blind we have such body orientation (including mouth, nose, limbs etc) so that we are still oriented forward.

What if we had eyes on our backs: {pritu} has also "frame of reference" place. Therefore, two ref-frames annihilate (sumti/sumti=1) and we are culturally neutral again.

You might argue: what if spiders that have eyes on their limbs learnt Lojban? Would that be culturaly neutral?

We must think about them too!

The answer is pretty clear.

If you have an eye on your leg please use reference frame and specify which of your multiple eyes is looking at the clock.

Still we have "line of sight" left. I think that every human or probably every animal has such feature. I can't imagine any creature without "lines-of-sensory-input". All sensory organs work that way. Therefore, I state that it's culturally neutral.

I haven't read all the conversation. So may be somebody has already understood this.

Thanks for your attention anyway.

On Saturday, August 11, 2012 10:29:28 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Jonathan Jones <eye...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:42 PM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

On Friday 10 August 2012 16:02:46 Jonathan Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 5:17 AM, Pierre Abbat <ph...@phma.optus.nu> wrote:
> > On Friday 10 August 2012 03:32:53 la .lindar. wrote:
> > > What sort of thing would you put in the x3 of carna that would seem
> >
> > valid.
> >
> > lo terdi cu carna lo jendu lo berti .i lo junla cu carna lo jendu lo
> > bitmu .i
> > lo xislu be lo karce cu carna lo jendu lo zunle be lo karce
> >
> > mu'omi'e .pier.
>
> Those examples don't work, because in each of them you give a reference
> point for the x3, and in none of them do you give a direction. (That said,
> if carna's definition was the one I talked ab out last night, all of them
> would be perfect examples.)

The direction is from the clock, along its axis, into the wall, which
corresponds to a direction of rotation by the convention of holding the right
hand so that its thumb is along the axis and the other fingers curl in the
direction of rotation.

No, that's not what I mean. You don't specify which direction the objects are rotating. The "direction" you're talking about is the reference point.

Okay, wait, I missed the "...corresponds to a direction of rotation...." the first time I read it. Still, your x3's only work if you follow that convention, which requires you to /know/ it in the first place. I don't know how known it is, but I'd certainly not heard of it before you mentioned it, which leads me to believe "very well" is not the answer.

It is a neat way to shove the reference point and direction of rotation together, even though it always means "counterclockwise".

[Jonathan Jones]

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 11:15 PM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Monday, August 13, 2012 5:19:24 PM UTC-5, xorxes wrote:

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 4:16 PM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He seems to be advocating the usage of two words, one for
> "turning" and one for "rotating", which I advocate.

Could someone explain why the same word can't be used for both?

The difference is subtle, but more apparent in Lojban place structure. For "rotate," we want a place structure focusing on a continuing rotation, so we focus on the direction of rotation and axis. For "turn," we want a place structure focusing on a short rotation, so we focus on the initial and final "angular positions" -- which way the object is facing at the beginning and end. Robin's example was saying "I turn to face you." -- The only way I can think of to say that now is something like {mi vo'a cargau mu'i lo nu do mi crane}, which I guess isn't too terrible, now that I think about it. In fact, {cargau} seems really good for "opening a door" or "unscrewing a bolt" which I believe were other discussed problem sentences.

Is that part of the proposed difference?

I'm pretty sure it is. 

"zulcarna" and "pritycarna" have been used before for laevorotation
and dextrorotation. Why are they inadequate?

That sounds like gibberish to me, but I understand the fundamental issue to be that carna3 had a pretty unknown usage since it requires an arbitrary "clockwise" or "counterclockwise" implication to be useful. Thus, any lujvo based off it are equally arbitrary, and redefining the gismu seems advantageous. I'd like to take a step back for a moment and meditate on why we're making a new word at all. There's a lot here to digest, and a lot that doesn't make sense.

aionys said a while ago that changing {carna} to the "turning" definition would actually be more likely to fix previous usage:

More often, it's used in the sense "x1 turns towards x3", as in {mi carna fi lo mi zdani vorme}.

I looked over the corpus link he provided and couldn't find any good, clear uses of carna2/carna3 that didn't seem like someone testing usage / asking about usage. In other words, it seems to me like everyone's been in the same boat of "umm... how do I use this, exactly?"

doi aionys, could you discuss the exact examples that preclude the definition of {carna} we somewhat like, that "x1 rotates counter-clockwise about axis x2 from perspective x3"? Or which specific examples support the "turning" definition? (I only found one like that, and it seemed like Robin using it, wanting it to mean that or thinking it did.)

I feel that this is critical to this discussion:

• If previous usage of place structure is minimal to nonexistent, then it makes perfect sense to redefine carna as close to "x1 rotates counterclockwise from perspective x2 about axis x3" as possible, so as to not break existing lujvo. Then {cargau} could be used for "turning" in the sense Robin wants. I'd also toss about the idea of using {barcarna} fa'u {nercarna} for "revolve" fa'u "rotate".
  
• If previous usage of place structure actually points to a particular definition significantly, then we should take that into account accordingly.

Okay, all information taken from here:
There are, since the last corpus update, 144 instances of carna.
Of those, 111 don't use the place structure at all, including the x1.
Of the ~30 of I actually looked at, 2/3 of them were using carna in the "x1 turns to x3" sense or were ambiguous (, i.e., either "turn" or "rotate" would make sense).
A few examples:

Turn:
.i coi do'u sei lo cmalu noltru noi carna gi'e ku'i viska no da cu clite spuda
"Good morning," the little prince responded politely, although when he turned around he saw nothing.

Either:
mi gasnu le nu le papri cu carna
I make the paper turn/rotate

Rotate:
le terdi cu carna ba'e mi
The Earth rotates with ME as it's axis. ("The Earth revolves around ME", I'm guessing.)
 

ji'a doi aionys, I think that the idea of multiple axes is very interesting. So you know, how you are thinking about using the axis place makes no sense to me from my physics background, but I find it very interesting as it actually might make the axis place useful. Also, it seems mathematically consistent. With current place structure, but your axis usage, it seems that:

{carna lo bartu} refers to revolution

{carna lo nenri} refers to rotation

{carna re lo bartu} refers to elliptical revolution

{carna re lo nenri} refers to ... elliptical rotation? That actually kind of makes sense, in a very weird way.

{carna ci da} refers to... what? I'm looking into this. Thoroughly intriguing. The extension I'm using now gives a beautiful shape, IMO. (That is, in 2-dim, given "axis" points a, b, c, and the scalar r, the set of {x for which |x-a| + |x-b| + |x-c| = r} gives something that looks like an ellipse with three foci.) I made some pictures of circles, ellipses, and 3-foci things with this extension.

Also, what about the issue that axes are lines? The ellipse extension assumes parallel lines -- what would nonparallel lines indicate? (It doesn't have to indicate anything, mind you. It is mathematically interesting, however.)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/Rc-uk1z3afIJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Jonathan Jones]

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

So please have a look at my suggestion  once again.

aionys was right, it's not our old {carna}. It's something new.

Robin asked "Yes, but what about objects that don't have clear <face>. e.g. imagine a rotating rod".

In this case we must define a plane in the middle of the axis perpendicular to the axis.

Then we have line-of-sight above the plane spreading to the plane.

In the image attached we can see that according to what the eye (marked with "line of sight") sees

the rod is rotating to the right.

So in such gismu we need a place for direction of rotation filled with "zunle/pritu". If this placed is not filled then the gismu would mean "rotating in general".

Incorrect. Under no circumstances do we need a place for direction of rotation if we define one of the two only possible directions as the keyword.

For example, if we make the definition be "x1 is rotating counter-clockwise viewed from orientation x2 about rotational axis/axes (set if multiple) x3", than the gismu (I'm going to use "gutni") can mean all of the following:

gutni: counter-clockwise
to'e gutni / tolgutni : clockwise
no'e gutni : not rotating (neither clockwise nor counter-clockwise rotation is occurring)
na'e gutni : not counter-clockwise (either clockwise or no rotation is occurring.)
na'e tolgutni : not clockwise (either counter-clockwise or no rotation is occurring.)

All that is needed for the word is a default direction, which can be changed to the other with to'e and for reasons of historical inertia should be counter-clockwise, a place to identify the 'face' when it isn't obvious (x2 in the above), and the axis/axes about which the rotation happens if it isn't the typical axis.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/mcZMDxumuPUJ.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:37:32 AM UTC+4, aionys wrote:

On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 12:10 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

So please have a look at my suggestion  once again.

aionys was right, it's not our old {carna}. It's something new.

Robin asked "Yes, but what about objects that don't have clear <face>. e.g. imagine a rotating rod".

In this case we must define a plane in the middle of the axis perpendicular to the axis.

Then we have line-of-sight above the plane spreading to the plane.

In the image attached we can see that according to what the eye (marked with "line of sight") sees

the rod is rotating to the right.

So in such gismu we need a place for direction of rotation filled with "zunle/pritu". If this placed is not filled then the gismu would mean "rotating in general".

Incorrect. Under no circumstances do we need a place for direction of rotation if we define one of the two only possible directions as the keyword.

For example, if we make the definition be "x1 is rotating counter-clockwise viewed from orientation x2 about rotational axis/axes (set if multiple) x3", than the gismu (I'm going to use "gutni") can mean all of the following:

gutni: counter-clockwise
to'e gutni / tolgutni : clockwise
no'e gutni : not rotating (neither clockwise nor counter-clockwise rotation is occurring)
na'e gutni : not counter-clockwise (either clockwise or no rotation is occurring.)
na'e tolgutni : not clockwise (either counter-clockwise or no rotation is occurring.)

All that is needed for the word is a default direction, which can be changed to the other with to'e and for reasons of historical inertia should be counter-clockwise, a place to identify the 'face' when it isn't obvious (x2 in the above), and the axis/axes about which the rotation happens if it isn't the typical axis.

No. Your suggestion is not universal. Lojban usually allows ambiguous expression 

It's not possible to say "rotating" without specifying in what direction it rotates.

You need one more case:

"rotates either clockwise or counterclockwise"

This is what was discussed in the chat.