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

Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies

In a message dated 2/17/2002 4:05:44 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

>But {po'u} is a very sloppy way of specifying the function you have just
>decided to name -- presumably that specification is the central act here. I
>might think moving fancu 4 to 2 made sense, but not putting it in as an

If {po'u} sounds too incidental, then you can use {gi'e du}:

fy fancu ro namcu pa namcu gi'e du le du'u makau sumji ce'u li pa

And if it is just an assignment, {goi} might even make more sense.

{gi'e du} sounds equally afterthoughtish for what is the point after all of the exercise. (goi} by fundamentalist me is for assigning identities to free floating terms like literals and other KOhA, not for specifying functions.  Again, it is an informal matter, not a vital one.

<I don't take {lo'e} to be just the typical. I've told you this
so many times already that I don't know what's the use of saying
it again. To me {fy fancu lo'e namcu lo'e namcu} means "F maps
numbers to numbers". I agree it is inexact, but useful to distinguish
from another function that maps prices to truth values, for

You don't expect funadamentalist me to pay any attention to your aberrations do you?  Even remember that you have them?  And especially when, even when you translate it, I can find no way to make it say that.  I don't see how your version is an advantage over (the slightly more exact) {lo' numcu lo'i numcu}, which works as well for distinguishing differrent functions by domain and range  -- and actually mentions their domain and range, to boot.

<In your interpretation, lo'i te fancu would be the set of all
ranges, not the range.>
Touche' again. Just use {vo'i} for the same effect.

<<I number,
Then we're missing an important predicate: "x1 maps value x2 to
value x3". I still think that would be the most useful place
structure for {fancu}, and that's how it has mostly been used
as far as x2 and x3 are concerned. (The use of x1 and x4 seems
to vary much more wildly.)>

Tsk, tsk.  Not by any mathematician I know.  But this is just {x3 uizbangi x2}, which is what you specified whizbang for in the first place.  Now that you have, use it.  I do find the notion of mapping a point onto a point rather strange, what's more.  Mapping a domain into a range such that a certain point in one corresponds to a certain point in the other makes sense, but this is so derivative a notion I wouldn't call it mapping.