[Tlhingan-hol] mathematics terminology

[Brad Wilson]

There have been discussions over the years regarding various mathematical terms. In light of the fact that I was recently "fooled" by some terms which I thought were canon, but were in fact "proposed", I thought a re-cap of what we know might be in order.
I think most would understand and not be be opposed to {mI'QeD} for mathematics, arithmetic, or any number-based science.

We already have canon terms for simple arithmetic functions:
addition {cha' boq wa'; chen wej}
subtraction {cha' boqHa' wa'; chen wa'}
multiplcation {loSlogh boq'egh cha'; chen chorgh}
division {cha'logh boqHa''egh chorgh; chen loS}
The commutative property of addition and multiplication states the "order" of the numbers doesn't change the result.
{wa' boq cha'; chen wej. cha' boq wa'; chen wej je.}
{cha'logh boq'egh wej; chen jav. wej'logh boq'egh cha'; chen jav je.}
I state this {mI'QeD vIt} "truth" as {boqchuqDI' mI'mey, lenglaH bIH}.


Various terms for geometrical shapes have been well-documented and don't need to be re-stated.
Geometry could be rendered {mey'QeD} or {yerghQeD} although these seems rather restricted.

Some terms which have been proposed recently by Doug Henning in the fb group:
{nagh mI'} for integer, I suppose because integers cannot "broken" into smaller numbers. I prefer something like {toghmeH mI'} or {mIw mI'} for integer.
{lam mI'} for rational number, because they can be split (ie. factored?) practically indefinitely. This certainly isn't descriptive of the English term; a rational number is one that can be written as a fraction of integers. Since Maltz hasn't ventured into integers yet, this could prove a tricky area to navigate.
{vaHbo' mI'} for real number, because of their continuity, or fluidity, through the entire number spectrum. If and when Maltz delves into real & imaginary numbers, I would think something like {mI' teH} and {mI' ngeb} might be better suited.
{mI' Sub} is a term I propose for prime number, one which cannot be factored into smaller numbers.
{ghom} works quite well for sets of numbers
{'ay'} could work for numerical factors. {jav 'ay'mey bIH wa' cha' je}, but this could be read as "6 parts" rather than "the parts of 6".


DaH jIjattaH vaj jImev.
gheyIl


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kli.org/pipermail/tlhingan-hol/attachments/20150107/19cf6345/attachment.html>