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

[pycyn@aol.com]

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
>incidental.

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
example.>

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.