From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Jan 24 11:41:25 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 24 Jan 2003 19:41:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 75087 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2003 19:41:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Jan 2003 19:41:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Jan 2003 19:41:24 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18c9hH-0004vS-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:41:03 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18c9cn-0004tw-00; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:36:25 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from dhcp189.chch.ox.ac.uk ([163.1.237.189] helo=dave ident=0) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18c9cZ-0004tl-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:36:11 -0800 Received: from mbays.homelinux.org (IDENT:1001@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dave (8.12.4/8.12.4) with ESMTP id h0OJaNAZ021894 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:36:23 GMT Received: from localhost (martin@localhost) by mbays.homelinux.org (8.12.4/8.12.4/Submit) with ESMTP id h0OJaMH8021891 for ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:36:22 GMT X-Authentication-Warning: mbays.homelinux.org: martin owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 19:36:21 +0000 (GMT) X-X-Sender: martin@mbays.homelinux.org To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e In-Reply-To: <20030124010609.GE7230@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 3888 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mbaysATfreeshellDOTorg@flibble.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Martin Bays From: Martin Bays Reply-To: mbaysATfreeshellDOTorg@flibble.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 11:46:04PM +0000, Martin Bays wrote: > > On Thu, 23 Jan 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 01:33:18PM +0000, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > > > .i le pu'u mi mi'e. maten. cilre fi la lojban. masti li so'u > > > > > > stidi lo'u cu masti le'u > > > > > > > drani .u'u .i do mi ba'o mulfa'igau le du'u lo si'o sucta se cusku to > > mu'u toi cu kakne lo nu seltau .i ki'e > > je'e to milxe stidi zo mu'a toi .ie xagmau > > > > The "imaginary journey" idea doesn't seem to make much sense for > > > > some FAhA cmavo, such as fa'a, to'o, zo'i. What does {fa'a broda} > > > > mean? > > > > > > broda occurs towards an unspecified place, i.e. between me and > > > there. > > > > > > > Or indeed {fa'a mo'i broda}? > > > > > > broda occurs whilst moving towards an unspecified place. > > > > > > > How about {broda fa'a ko'a}? > > > > > > broda occurs between here and ko'a, most likely. Or pointing > > > towards it; not sure. > > > > > > > That makes sense, but it upsets the usual equivalence between {FAhA broda} > > and {broda FAhA mi}. > > I don't think you mean 'equivalence'; if you do, you are wrong. > > broda be'a ko'a == broda occurs to the north of ko'a (I think) > be'a broda == broda occurs to the north of the observer > Isn't "the observer" generally mi? What does {broda be'a mi} mean that {be'a broda} doesn't? > > [Snipping interesting stuff] > > > > > > So > > > > > > li ma'o fy. pa jo'i re jo'i ci > > > > > > appears to work; this treats jo'i as infix, which may or may not be > > > correct. > > > > jbofi'e says no. Oops! u'u o'onai se'i I think I forgot the li. > > rlpowell@chain> jbofihe -x > li ma'o fy. pa jo'i re jo'i ci > Warning: Sentence may be missing selbri at line 1 column 1? > [(li /No./ ma'o /operand to operator/ fy /f/ pa /1/ jo'i /array/ re /2/ jo'i /array/ ci /3/)] > > jbofihe version V0_38 > > > [more snip] > > > > > > ce'o doesn't work in mex, nor do any of the set operators, which is > > > *insane*. I have *no* idea how to do set math in lojban. jo'i is > > > *certainly* not it. If I knew how to get JOI to work in mex, that > > > would be fixable, but I've no idea how to do that. If we can't make > > > JOI work in mex, then we either need to add set and sequence > > > operations to mex, or I'm going to throw my weight on the "mex are > > > totally useless" side of the argument. > > > > > > > Umm... you can have JOI connected operands (see e.g. CLL18.17.10)... > > whether this is an acceptable way of doing mathematical sequences I > > don't know, though I'd assumed it was. > > li vei pa ce re ce ci ve'o vu'u re > > works in jbofihe. As do a few other examples. I'm sorry, you're > absolutely right. > > Oddly enough, > > li ma'o fy. pa jo'i re ce ci > I read that as "f(1,({1,3}))". Is that right, and is it what you meant? > works but > > li ma'o fy. pa ce re ce ci > > does not. Anyone know why? You need the boi - {li ma'o fy. boi pa ce re ce ci} works. > > li ma'o fy. vei pa ce re ce ci > > does work, though, and I can accept that, although I'm more likely to > use jo'i. If you want a JOI equivalent of jo'i, shouldn't you be using ce'o? ce is "in a set with". > Now if I just had math stuff to write in lojban... Any > ideas? I was toying a bit with Einstein's original Relativity paper. > Fantastic idea! > As an added bonus, "li pa ce re ce ci vu'u re" appears to be equivalent > to the version with vei and ve'o, and satisfies my concerns about lojban > not having all set operations; if anyone things that the above does > *not* evaluate to "pa ce ci", please let me know. I don't see why it should... If you're using vu'u as a set subtraction operator, surely it needs both sides to be sets. But {re} on its own is "2", not "{2}". Would {lu'i li re} be "{2}"? > > Now, on to the general set problems. > > Unfortunately, that doesn't fix the general set problems. In > particular, if we have: > > le pamoi gerku ce remoi gerku ce cimoi gerku ku ku'a le remoi gerku ce > vomoi gerku > > I'm not sure how to turn that into a set subtraction, without which we > do *not* have a complete set (ha ha) of general set operators. > > Some ideas, comments requested: > > le pamoi gerku ce remoi gerku ce cimoi gerku ku ku'a ni'u le remoi gerku > > le pamoi gerku ce remoi gerku ce cimoi gerku ku ku'a da'a le remoi gerku > > le pamoi gerku ce remoi gerku ce cimoi gerku ku ku'a nai le remoi gerku > > I think I like da'a the best, but they all suck, IMO. Having a cmavo > for set subtraction seems reasonable. da'a seems best... though this approach does mean you're taking an intersection with a proper class, which might be something we'd rather avoid (isn't it?). > > While I'm at it, does anyone see a difference between > > le pamoi gerku ce remoi gerku ce cimoi gerku ku ku'a le remoi gerku ce > vomoi gerku > > and > > le pamoi gerku ku ce le remoi gerku ku ce le cimoi gerku ku ku'a le > remoi gerku ku ce le vomoi gerku > > ? (The latter having a lot more ku). I'm pretty sure they're > equivalent, but I want to check. I'd guess they're the same... but then I don't know nothin'. > > > > As the only B.Math here, AFAIK, I'd like to think that my weight > > > matters in this case. 8) > > > > Give me a few months, and I'm afraid I'll be a BMath in all but > > name... and give me another year and I should be an MMath. And then > > I'll outrank you! Hee-hee. > > An actual M.Math, or an M.Sc. in Math? If an actual M.Math, what > school? Eeek! I get confused with the terminology. It's this weird system we have in England (and maybe the whole of Britain) where you get MMath for doing a four year first degree, and a BMath (or actually, maybe just a BA - is a BMath something more special?) for doing the usual three years. I think it's meant to be roughly - M.Math = B.A. + M.Sc., though in fact if you want to carry on with maths in academia you pretty much have to do the 4-year course. > > > I have actually tried to do a little translation of logic/set theory > > stuff into lojban... but not without difficulty. And I found normal > > bridi more useful than mex - but then I haven't really fully absorbed > > that chapter yet. > > > > I would like to translate something mathematical and substantial; got any > contacts that would like to let us release a translated paper? Ummm... I guess I could ask someone. Can you be more specific? Do you just want some random high-powered maths research? Would it be comprehensible enough to be translatable? And how official a "release"? > > -Robin > > --- #^t'm::>#shs>:#,_$1+9j9"^>h>" < v :>8*0\j" o'u" v" e'i" v".neta"^q> ;z,[; > > ^