Received: from localhost ([::1]:40366 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Tf4Ps-0000OT-Na; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:56:44 -0800 Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com ([209.85.215.53]:42152) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Tf4Pi-0000ON-Q7 for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:56:42 -0800 Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id w12so1358085lag.40 for ; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:56:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=zoGQ2/EjkldCsffWhXFKVGgUPEyDJoQOW8L0eKODSH8=; b=rmLuYDd80Us/swt/2Y8956HGJ9Uvd7QdHnJi93cuQv+lFsyGMeTWPc3BaiDdZQOqGY vqdrUrZn2vBJ9VVzWOk0K+WOvbKtnkkN9G7Rzh7XYadZ5PkKj32mvlTffoGO6flRMgGx hL4S6wTQvksgjaa3kjfbOSAtdlQehpoIZCqTkY15wUBXan/eD1/9eXCEnskDI5A8PDY9 rEVpJDQEIhrA854IxeaYuIcWTaacg3yO2u6xnU6iNdBb6ISmi5D2kZdgDqyZ7mvho/e1 me21zTRiHLVO47VhVASKWxW9NPF7ANDpNkaZ9EdT3mnJ7GpsreYxl0rzyfJ92aIv/G8l om4w== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.113.225 with SMTP id jb1mr6011427lab.23.1354434986999; Sat, 01 Dec 2012 23:56:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.112.131.229 with HTTP; Sat, 1 Dec 2012 23:56:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1386646.ZUz1NGUVUn@caracal> <1804243.lh07qoYVdf@caracal> Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2012 08:56:26 +0100 X-Google-Sender-Auth: RdegVDzdcRc-TFeM5xznJC4MOJg Message-ID: From: Janek To: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.3 X-Spam_score_int: 3 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: So maybe jimte should be sup/inf? And limsup/liminf would be a lujvo of jimte and whatever we decide to use for limit? After all, limsup is just lim_n->inf sup {a_k: k>=n}. mu'o mi'e ianek On 2 December 2012 04:55, Ian Johnson wrote: [...] Content analysis details: (0.3 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (janek37[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.2 FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT Envelope-from freemail username ends in digit (janek37[at]gmail.com) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature Subject: Re: [jbovlaste] Is mathematical terminology jargon? X-BeenThere: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1458353330997470000==" Errors-To: jbovlaste-bounces@lojban.org --===============1458353330997470000== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0408d91b457e4c04cfd9f8d2 --f46d0408d91b457e4c04cfd9f8d2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 So maybe jimte should be sup/inf? And limsup/liminf would be a lujvo of jimte and whatever we decide to use for limit? After all, limsup is just lim_n->inf sup {a_k: k>=n}. mu'o mi'e ianek On 2 December 2012 04:55, Ian Johnson wrote: > In what sense are limsup/liminf jimte? They are not bounds for the entire > sequence (consider 1,0,0,0..., which has limsup 0), and are not necessarily > bounds for an infinite tail of the sequence either (consider any strictly > monotone sequence). > > > mu'o mi'e la latro'a > > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 10:43 PM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > >> On Thursday, November 29, 2012 09:51:09 Michael Turniansky wrote: >> > Actually, I never heard of the "limit superior" and "limit inferior" >> > before. I had only heard of the other, and I understand that it may >> cross >> > it several times. But that doesn't change the fact that it gets >> > progressively closer to it, and it ultimately serves as a extreme in >> that >> > sense. OTOH, I proposed a lujvo, and a jargon one at that, so it can >> have >> > any meaning attached to it we want. >> >> I think that the place structure of the word for "limit" should be "x1 is >> the >> limit of x2 approaching x3 in direction x4". And I still think it is not a >> jimte, and agree that the limits inferior and superior are jimte. >> >> As to jargon, math terminology is more apt to be used outside the jargon >> field >> than, say, Pokemon terminology, so we should be more careful not to make >> math >> terms polysemous. The fact that natlangs use such terms as "ring" and >> "filter" >> in math to mean something completely different from the ordinary meaning >> should >> not excuse us doing the same in Lojban. >> >> Pierre >> -- >> The Black Garden on the Mountain is not on the Black Mountain. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jbovlaste mailing list >> jbovlaste@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste >> > > > _______________________________________________ > jbovlaste mailing list > jbovlaste@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste > > --f46d0408d91b457e4c04cfd9f8d2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable So maybe jimte should be sup/inf? And limsup/liminf would be a lujvo of jim= te and whatever we decide to use for limit? After all, limsup is just lim_n= ->inf sup {a_k: k>=3Dn}.

mu'o mi'e ianek


On 2 December 2012 04:55, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
In what sense are limsup/liminf jimte? They are not bounds for the entire s= equence (consider 1,0,0,0..., which has limsup 0), and are not necessarily = bounds for an infinite tail of the sequence either (consider any strictly m= onotone sequence).


mu'o mi'e la latro'a

On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 10:43 PM, = Pierre Abbat <phma@bezitopo.org> wrote:
On Thursday, November 29, 2012 09:51:09= Michael Turniansky wrote:
> =C2=A0 Actually, I never heard of the "limit superior" and &= quot;limit inferior"
> before. =C2=A0I had only heard of the other, and I understand that it = may cross
> it several times. =C2=A0But that doesn't change the fact that it g= ets
> progressively closer to it, and it ultimately serves as a extreme in t= hat
> sense. OTOH, I proposed a lujvo, and a jargon one at that, so it can h= ave
> any meaning attached to it we want.

I think that the place structure of the word for "limit" sh= ould be "x1 is the
limit of x2 approaching x3 in direction x4". And I still think it is n= ot a
jimte, and agree that the limits inferior and superior are jimte.

As to jargon, math terminology is more apt to be used outside the jargon fi= eld
than, say, Pokemon terminology, so we should be more careful not to make ma= th
terms polysemous. The fact that natlangs use such terms as "ring"= and "filter"
in math to mean something completely different from the ordinary meaning sh= ould
not excuse us doing the same in Lojban.

Pierre
--
The Black Garden on the Mountain is not on the Black Mountain.


_______________________________________________
jbovlaste mailing list
jbovlaste@lojban.= org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste


_______________________________________________
jbovlaste mailing list
jbovlaste@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste


--f46d0408d91b457e4c04cfd9f8d2-- --===============1458353330997470000== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ jbovlaste mailing list jbovlaste@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste --===============1458353330997470000==--