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

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la xod cusku di'e

> "f(x)" and "x + 2" don't have any relationship except functionhood.

John is a person.
"John" is the name of a person.
My friend is a person.
"My friend" is an expression used to refer to a person.
My friend is John.
"My friend" is not "John", they are different ways of
referring to the same person.

f(x) is a function.
"f(x)" is a way of referring to a function.
x+2 is a function.
"x+2" is an expression used to refer to a function.
f(x)=x+2.
"f(x)" is not "x+2", they are different ways of referring
to the same function.

In Lojban, we say {la djan prenu} or {le mi pendo cu prenu}.
We might say {le mi pendo cu du la djan}, but we don't say
{la djan cu prenu le mi pendo} for "John is a person who
is my friend". We don't have any predicates (other than {du})
that have two places for the same argument. Apparently {fancu}
is the other exception, since x1 and x4 appear to be places
for the same argument. (The argument is NOT the referring
expression, the argument is the referent of the expression.)

> The fancu2, 3 should refer to the axes or real quantities in question. But
> these are sets, not single values.

So you say, but you don't follow your prescription. The last time
you used {fancu} you wrote:

> > fancu ro velvecnu le jei mi tervecnu kei lipa
> > For every price, the truth value of whether or not I buy it is unity.

You had each price as x2, and truth values as x3. You did not
have a set of prices in x2 nor a set of truth values in x3. You
were using it (with respect to x2 and x3) the way I say it should
be used.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com