From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Mon Aug 23 11:56:53 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:56:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from web41904.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.155])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1BzJzx-0008Rg-Ct
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:56:53 -0700
Message-ID: <20040823185624.23407.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41904.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:56:24 PDT
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: logical proofs?
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
In-Reply-To: <20040823183626.GM3257@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 723
X-Approved-By: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners


--- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > > Suppose that we have a finite list of prime numbers.   
> > > .i sruma lo du'u mi'o ponse lo liste be me'i ci'i broda
> > 
> > I like {me'i ci'i} for finite, but {ponse}? In what sense do we own
> > the list? I'd just say: {ru'a fo'a liste me'i ci'i broda}
> 
> Forgot ru'a, thanks.  What is it with you and fo'a?

I hardly use it. In this case, I was going to use ko'a, but then 
I noticed you later use ko'a for something else, so I used fo'a to
avoid confusion.

> > > > This number is, by a previous result (you could prove it if you
> > > > wanted), guaranteed to be divisible by some prime number - perhaps
> > > > itself.  
> > > .i ko'a to se nibli lo pu nu jarco toi cu kakne lo nu fendi fi pa
> > > broda goi ko'e to cumki lo nu du ko'a toi
> > i ko'a sei lo pu nu jarco cu nibli cu mulpi'i su'o broda goi ko'e no'u
> > ju'o cu'i ko'a
> 
> I'm not as comfortable with sei as you.
> 
> That's a very iffy use of ju'o cu'i; I'm not at all sure that ju'o cu'i
> is strong enough to eliminate the identicality of no'u.

It isn't meant to eliminate the identicality, it just flags it
as a possibility. I'm not sure ju'ocu'i is the best choice here,
but cumki doesn't seem right to me.  

> > mulpi'i: x1 pilji x2 x3 ije x1 e x2 e x3 mulnau
> 
> You mean mulna'u there, yes? 

Yes, sorry.

> Why not just use pilji?

Because we only want integer factors. 

> > i.e. "x1 is divisible by x2"
> 
> To me, "divisible" is more like fendi, but fair enough.

fendi has an agent, it has little to do with numbers. Division 
of numbers is dilcu. 

> [prime definition]
> > > da poi mulna'usle cei broda cu ma'u zei mulna'u gi'e mulna'u pilji
> > > po'o pa da
> > 
> > Only "1" is mulna'u pilji pa da, all other primes have exactly two
> > natural divisors.
> 
> Sorry, I meant "pa boi da".

{pa boi da} is the same as {pa da}. Did you mean {li pa da}? 
But every number, not just primes are pilji li pa da. 

mu'o mi'e xorxes



		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail