Received: from 173-13-139-235-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.13.139.235]:36958 helo=jukni.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1anyl4-0004wq-Pu for jbovlaste-admin@lojban.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2016 18:29:24 -0700 Received: by jukni.digitalkingdom.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 06 Apr 2016 18:29:18 -0700 From: "Apache" To: curtis289@att.net Reply-To: webmaster@lojban.org Subject: [jvsw] Definition Edited At Word zmaumce -- By krtisfranks Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 18:29:18 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Message-Id: X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.5 X-Spam_score_int: 5 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: In jbovlaste, the user krtisfranks has edited a definition of "zmaumce" in the language "English". Differences: 5,5c5,5 < A bound on a function is really a bound on the image (set; $x_2$) of the function's domain set under the operation of the function; otherwise, it is sumti-raising. $x_3$ accepts either a directional vector (normalized) / a point on the unit circle (in which case the direction from the origin to that point is the direction which is being considered), or exactly one of li {ma'u} and li {ni'u}; it is unlikely that any other input would be acceptable. "{ma'u}" causes the bound to be an upper bound (a bound on the positive side or the 'right'/'above' when plotted using typical Western European conventions) - it is a number which exceeds/is greater than or equal to every element of $x_2$ in the set underlying $x_4$ according to the order endowing $x_4$. "{ni'u}" causes the bound to be an lower bound (a bound on the negative side or the 'left'/'below' when plotted using typical Western European conventions) - it is a number which is less than or equal to every element of $x_2$ in the set underlying $x_4$ according to the order endowing $x_4$. Warning: If $x_3$ is explicitly filled, that is the only direction which is to be assumed. If it is not explicitly filled, only one (or, arguably, possibly zero) direction(s) is(/are) to be assumed; in this context, it is to be inferred that the set $x_2$ is (possibly) bounded on at least one side/in at least one direction. Connecting arguments by 'AND' in $x_3$ implies that $x_2$ is the set formed by the singleton of $x_3$; it is NOT the equivalent to the English term "bound(ed)" without qualifiers/adjectives (for that meaning, use modulus/absolute value/norm on the input of $x_1$). The bound is not strict (proposal: use {praperi} for this sense), but must be true of all elements of $x_2$ in that direction ($x_3$); it is not necessarily the extremal/best finite bound on $x_2$. $x_1$ is typically finite; submitting any infinity for it is arguably bad form but would imply that no element of $x_2$ is infinite on the side determined by $x_3$ (where "infinite" has meaning [...] Content analysis details: (0.5 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: lojban.org] 1.4 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT RBL: No description available. [173.13.139.235 listed in bb.barracudacentral.org] -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 1.0 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS In jbovlaste, the user krtisfranks has edited a definition of "zmaumce" in the language "English". Differences: 5,5c5,5 < A bound on a function is really a bound on the image (set; $x_2$) of the function's domain set under the operation of the function; otherwise, it is sumti-raising. $x_3$ accepts either a directional vector (normalized) / a point on the unit circle (in which case the direction from the origin to that point is the direction which is being considered), or exactly one of li {ma'u} and li {ni'u}; it is unlikely that any other input would be acceptable. "{ma'u}" causes the bound to be an upper bound (a bound on the positive side or the 'right'/'above' when plotted using typical Western European conventions) - it is a number which exceeds/is greater than or equal to every element of $x_2$ in the set underlying $x_4$ according to the order endowing $x_4$. "{ni'u}" causes the bound to be an lower bound (a bound on the negative side or the 'left'/'below' when plotted using typical Western European conventions) - it is a number which is less than or equal to every element of $x_2$ in the set underlying $x_4$ according to the order endowing $x_4$. Warning: If $x_3$ is explicitly filled, that is the only direction which is to be assumed. If it is not explicitly filled, only one (or, arguably, possibly zero) direction(s) is(/are) to be assumed; in this context, it is to be inferred that the set $x_2$ is (possibly) bounded on at least one side/in at least one direction. Connecting arguments by 'AND' in $x_3$ implies that $x_2$ is the set formed by the singleton of $x_3$; it is NOT the equivalent to the English term "bound(ed)" without qualifiers/adjectives (for that meaning, use modulus/absolute value/norm on the input of $x_1$). The bound is not strict (proposal: use {praperi} for this sense), but must be true of all elements of $x_2$ in that direction ($x_3$); it is not necessarily the extremal/best finite bound on $x_2$. $x_1$ is typically finite; submitting any infinity for it is arguably bad form but would imply that no element of $x_2$ is infinite on the side determined by $x_3$ (where "infinite" has meaning determined also by $x_4$; again, for "finite", use modulus/absolute value/norm) - no other information (about its being bounded or unbounded) can be discerned (unless the sumti in $x_3$ and/or $x_4$ are incompatible). For explicit statement of unboundedness, use {zi'au} as the sumti of $x_1$. $x_4$ can be more exotic than simply the field of real numbers. --- > $x_2$ should be a subset (not necessarily proper) of the set underlying $x_4$; it may contain element which are infinite, in general. A bound on a function is really a bound on the image (set; $x_2$) of the function's domain set under the operation of the function; otherwise, it is sumti-raising. $x_3$ accepts either a directional vector (normalized) / a point on the unit circle (in which case the direction from the origin to that point is the direction which is being considered), or exactly one of li {ma'u} and li {ni'u}; it is unlikely that any other input would be acceptable. "{ma'u}" causes the bound to be an upper bound (a bound on the positive side or the 'right'/'above' when plotted using typical Western European conventions) - it is a number which exceeds/is greater than or equal to every element of $x_2$ in the set underlying $x_4$ according to the order endowing $x_4$. "{ni'u}" causes the bound to be an lower bound (a bound on the negative side or the 'left'/'below' when plotted using typical Western European conventions) - it is a number which is less than or equal to every element of $x_2$ in the set underlying $x_4$ according to the order endowing $x_4$. In order to be well-defined, all elements of $x_2$ united with the singleton of $x_1$ must be ordered according to the ordering endowing $x_4$; if $x_4$ lacks a good order, then $x_1$ is undefined. $x_4$ must be an ordered structure, not simply a set. Warning: If $x_3$ is explicitly filled, that is the only direction which is to be assumed. If it is not explicitly filled, only one (or, arguably, possibly zero) direction(s) is(/are) to be assumed; in this context, it is to be inferred that the set $x_2$ is (possibly) bounded on at least one side/in at least one direction. Connecting arguments by 'AND' in $x_3$ implies that $x_2$ is the set formed by the singleton of $x_3$; it is NOT the equivalent to the English term "bound(ed)" without qualifiers/adjectives (for that meaning, use modulus/absolute value/norm on the input of $x_1$). The bound is not strict (proposal: use {praperi} for this sense), but must be true of all elements of $x_2$ in that direction ($x_3$); it is not necessarily the extremal/best finite bound on $x_2$. $x_1$ is typically finite; submitting any infinity for it is arguably bad form but would imply that no element of $x_2$ is infinite on the side determined by $x_3$ (where "infinite" has meaning determined also by $x_4$; again, for "finite", use modulus/absolute value/norm) - no other information (about its being bounded or unbounded) can be discerned (unless the sumti in $x_3$ and/or $x_4$ are incompatible). For explicit statement of unboundedness (in a more general sense, possibly including ill-definition of what "boundedness" even means in this context) in the direction determined by $x_3$, use {zi'au} as the sumti of $x_1$ (confer earlier note about compatibility of definition and ordering of $x_4$ with $x_2$). $x_4$ can be more exotic than simply the field of real numbers. 11,12d10 < Word: upper bound, In Sense: bound above < Word: lower bound, In Sense: bound below \n13a12,12 \n> Word: lower bound, In Sense: bound below 15a15,15 \n> Word: upper bound, In Sense: bound above Old Data: Definition: $x_1$ (li) is a bound on set $x_2$ (set) in direction $x_3$ (li) in ordered structure $x_4$; $x_1$ bounds $x_2$ from the $x_3$ side in $x_4$; $x_2$ is bounded from the $x_3$ side by $x_1$. Notes: A bound on a function is really a bound on the image (set; $x_2$) of the function's domain set under the operation of the function; otherwise, it is sumti-raising. $x_3$ accepts either a directional vector (normalized) / a point on the unit circle (in which case the direction from the origin to that point is the direction which is being considered), or exactly one of li {ma'u} and li {ni'u}; it is unlikely that any other input would be acceptable. "{ma'u}" causes the bound to be an upper bound (a bound on the positive side or the 'right'/'above' when plotted using typical Western European conventions) - it is a number which exceeds/is greater than or equal to every element of $x_2$ in the set underlying $x_4$ according to the order endowing $x_4$. "{ni'u}" causes the bound to be an lower bound (a bound on the negative side or the 'left'/'below' when plotted using typical Western European conventions) - it is a number which is less than or equal to every element of $x_2$ in the set underlying $x_4$ according to the order endowing $x_4$. Warning: If $x_3$ is explicitly filled, that is the only direction which is to be assumed. If it is not explicitly filled, only one (or, arguably, possibly zero) direction(s) is(/are) to be assumed; in this context, it is to be inferred that the set $x_2$ is (possibly) bounded on at least one side/in at least one direction. Connecting arguments by 'AND' in $x_3$ implies that $x_2$ is the set formed by the singleton of $x_3$; it is NOT the equivalent to the English term "bound(ed)" without qualifiers/adjectives (for that meaning, use modulus/absolute value/norm on the input of $x_1$). The bound is not strict (proposal: use {praperi} for this sense), but must be true of all elements of $x_2$ in that direction ($x_3$); it is not necessarily the extremal/best finite bound on $x_2$. $x_1$ is typically finite; submitting any infinity for it is arguably bad form but would imply that no element of $x_2$ is infinite on the side determined by $x_3$ (where "infinite" has meaning determined also by $x_4$; again, for "finite", use modulus/absolute value/norm) - no other information (about its being bounded or unbounded) can be discerned (unless the sumti in $x_3$ and/or $x_4$ are incompatible). For explicit statement of unboundedness, use {zi'au} as the sumti of $x_1$. $x_4$ can be more exotic than simply the field of real numbers. Jargon: Gloss Keywords: Word: upper bound, In Sense: bound above Word: lower bound, In Sense: bound below Word: bounded set, In Sense: on a side Word: set of only finite elements, In Sense: Word: unbounded set, In Sense: Place Keywords: New Data: Definition: $x_1$ (li) is a bound on set $x_2$ (set) in direction $x_3$ (li) in ordered structure $x_4$; $x_1$ bounds $x_2$ from the $x_3$ side in $x_4$; $x_2$ is bounded from the $x_3$ side by $x_1$. Notes: $x_2$ should be a subset (not necessarily proper) of the set underlying $x_4$; it may contain element which are infinite, in general. A bound on a function is really a bound on the image (set; $x_2$) of the function's domain set under the operation of the function; otherwise, it is sumti-raising. $x_3$ accepts either a directional vector (normalized) / a point on the unit circle (in which case the direction from the origin to that point is the direction which is being considered), or exactly one of li {ma'u} and li {ni'u}; it is unlikely that any other input would be acceptable. "{ma'u}" causes the bound to be an upper bound (a bound on the positive side or the 'right'/'above' when plotted using typical Western European conventions) - it is a number which exceeds/is greater than or equal to every element of $x_2$ in the set underlying $x_4$ according to the order endowing $x_4$. "{ni'u}" causes the bound to be an lower bound (a bound on the negative side or the 'left'/'below' when plotted using typical Western European conventions) - it is a number which is less than or equal to every element of $x_2$ in the set underlying $x_4$ according to the order endowing $x_4$. In order to be well-defined, all elements of $x_2$ united with the singleton of $x_1$ must be ordered according to the ordering endowing $x_4$; if $x_4$ lacks a good order, then $x_1$ is undefined. $x_4$ must be an ordered structure, not simply a set. Warning: If $x_3$ is explicitly filled, that is the only direction which is to be assumed. If it is not explicitly filled, only one (or, arguably, possibly zero) direction(s) is(/are) to be assumed; in this context, it is to be inferred that the set $x_2$ is (possibly) bounded on at least one side/in at least one direction. Connecting arguments by 'AND' in $x_3$ implies that $x_2$ is the set formed by the singleton of $x_3$; it is NOT the equivalent to the English term "bound(ed)" without qualifiers/adjectives (for that meaning, use modulus/absolute value/norm on the input of $x_1$). The bound is not strict (proposal: use {praperi} for this sense), but must be true of all elements of $x_2$ in that direction ($x_3$); it is not necessarily the extremal/best finite bound on $x_2$. $x_1$ is typically finite; submitting any infinity for it is arguably bad form but would imply that no element of $x_2$ is infinite on the side determined by $x_3$ (where "infinite" has meaning determined also by $x_4$; again, for "finite", use modulus/absolute value/norm) - no other information (about its being bounded or unbounded) can be discerned (unless the sumti in $x_3$ and/or $x_4$ are incompatible). For explicit statement of unboundedness (in a more general sense, possibly including ill-definition of what "boundedness" even means in this context) in the direction determined by $x_3$, use {zi'au} as the sumti of $x_1$ (confer earlier note about compatibility of definition and ordering of $x_4$ with $x_2$). $x_4$ can be more exotic than simply the field of real numbers. Jargon: Gloss Keywords: Word: bounded set, In Sense: on a side Word: lower bound, In Sense: bound below Word: set of only finite elements, In Sense: Word: unbounded set, In Sense: Word: upper bound, In Sense: bound above Place Keywords: You can go to to see it.