[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: jboske@yahoogroups.com*Subject*: Re: Anything but tautologies (was: Re: [jboske] Re: [lojban] tautologies*From*: Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>*Date*: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 19:29:40 -0500 (EST)*In-reply-to*: <F29FuSwUq9TjCqaXAmK00016f5f@hotmail.com>

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > la xod cusku di'e > > >The function body goes in fancu4, whether that function expression is a > >transcendental trig function, a polynonial, or whatever. "1" is a > >perfectly legitimate polynomial of degree zero. Do I need to tag the fact > >that fancu4 is a function? > > In mathematics it is fairly common to use the same notation, "f(x)", > both for a function and for the value that the function takes on > for a given value of the domain. There is no need to replicate this > in Lojban. Well, I wasn't using "1" as an analog for "f", but as a polynomial. In other words, not its name, but its expression. So I don't see how the confusion concerning f(x) is relevant. -- The tao that can be tar(1)ed is not the entire Tao. The path that can be specified is not the Full Path.

**References**:**Re: Anything but tautologies (was: Re: [jboske] Re: [lojban] tautologies***From:*"Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Anything but tautologies (was: Re: [jboske] Re: [lojban] tautologies** - Next by Date:
**Re: Anything but tautologies (was: Re: [jboske] Re: [lojban] tautologies** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Anything but tautologies (was: Re: [jboske] Re: [lojban] tautologies** - Next by thread:
**Re: Anything but tautologies (was: Re: [jboske] Re: [lojban] tautologies** - Index(es):