jan Pina wrote:nanpa luka li kulupu e tu tu la sama e nanpa mute.

nanpa luka li weka tu la sama e tu wan.

nanpa tu li kipisi e nanpa luka wan la sama tu wan.

janKipo wrote:This says, as best as I can make out, in tp: " If five numbers bring together four, [that] identifies [probably don't want 'e', and so "is the same as"] many numbers. If five numbers are twice distant, [that] identifies three. If two numbers cut six numbers, [that] is three. Do you think [prob needs an object, say 'sama']" You probably meant to say 'luka li [multiplies] tu tu la ni li sama mute. sina weka e tu tan luka la ni li sama tu wan. sina kipisi e luka wan lon tu la ni li sama tu wan.' Or so

Imho "nanpa luka li kulupu e tu tu la sama e nanpa mute." seems pretty straight forward.

if number of hand(5) makes groups of 2+2 so is the same as number of many(20).

"luka li kulupu tu tu la ni li sama mute" li pona tawa me.

But there is to much ambiguity with "luka" and "mute".

I propose to keep "nanpa" [object or property] to tag at least ambiguous cases like "luka" "mute" and "ali".

So the reader could know - we are talking math not a real objects.

Either "digital hand"-"luka nanpa"or "digit of hand"-"nanpa luka" seems an absolute necessity.

"luka nanpa li kulupu e tu tu la ni li sama mute nanpa"

or even better

"luka nanpa li mute e tu tu la ni li sama mute nanpa"

Here we use "mute" as a function of multiplication and as number 20 "mute nanpa".

janKipo wrote:mathematical terminology is even less developed than numbers.

We have a plenty of words to use as math operators. And it would not take much negotiation to use one or another.

For operations like multiplication and addition verbs "li kulupu e", "li mute e", "li suli e" or even far fetched "li pona e"

For division, subtraction and negation "li weka e", "li kipisi e", and as reverse of "li pona e" we may use "li pakala e" or "li ike e".

Also "nanpa ike" or "nanpa ante" could be used to represent negative and complex numbers.