# Re: Anything but tautologies (was: Re: [jboske] Re: [lojban] tautologies

```On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:

>
> la xod cusku di'e
>
> >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 expression "x^2+x+1" is sometimes used to refer to the polynomial,
> and other times to refer to the value that the polynomial takes on
> for a given value in its domain. When we write f(x)=x^2+x+1, we
> mean sometimes that the function f(x) is the funtion x^2+x+1,
> and sometimes we mean that the value f(x) is equal to the value
> x^2+x+1. In other words, we use the same expression to refer to
> {lo te fancu} and to {lo ve fancu}. You are doing the same with
> {li pa}. It's a very widespread practice in mathematics, and it
> hardly ever leads to confusion, but it is the type of thing that
> Lojban takes pride in differentiating.

Yet in this case, I don't yet see how I could express the function "1" as
distinct from the value "1". Do you?

--
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.

```