```On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:10:51 +0000, Simon Grant wrote
> I'd say best to avoid notations which people want to use in divergent ways.
> Personally I rather like your idea, Ray, about x being used in the
indication of the set of all numbers with x replaced with 0..9, but we don't
really need it, and if others think it should mean something else, well I'd be
happy to do without it.

x as [0-9] implies always a precision of year.
19xx would then be 1900/1999 (with a precision of year)
which contrasts with the  20th century ( {1901-2000} with a precision of  100
years)

What we could do to keep the syntax sound ( and thus  give a unique meaning to
19xx):

19xx as {1900-1999} with a precision of 100 years
19   as 20th century , e.g. {1901-2000} with a precision of 100 years.

BUT with the additional condition that  "aprox", resp. "unknown" applied to
19xx  and 19 are  equivalent:
19xx~  = 19~
(19xx)? = (19)?

I think this makes logical sense since  the difference between  the two is
an offset of 1 year, a magnitude  under the precision of our dates.

--

Edward C. Zimmermann, NONMONOTONIC LAB
Basis Systeme netzwerk, Munich Ges. des buergerl. Rechts
Office Leo (R&D):
Leopoldstrasse 53-55, D-80802 Munich,
Federal Republic of Germany
http://www.nonmonotonic.net
Umsatz-St-ID: DE130492967
```