[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fancu (was: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies
la pycyn cusku di'e
> assuming each of your spouses
> has one and only one bed.
Too strong; only requires that each has a bed -- they might all have the
one, which might or might not be the only one in the house. No evidence
is meant to be a bijection or even a surjection.
Each spouse must have one and only one bed if it's going
to be a function. If you allow more than one bed per spouse
it is not a function. I did not say that each spouse had to
have a different bed, nor that all beds had to be had.
<I have no idea in what context this question might be useful though.
You're not even asking that the function be one-to-one, so more than
one spouse might end up in the same bed.>
So, why is this an objection? Most functions are not 1-1 and are specified
as injections not surjections.
It was not an objection. It was bewilderment as to the
circumstances when one would want to use such a sentence.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com