From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon Aug 23 11:36:27 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1BzJgA-0007zk-SM
	for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:36:27 -0700
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 11:36:26 -0700
To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: logical proofs?
Message-ID: <20040823183626.GM3257@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
References: <20040823153053.GI3257@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20040823161720.89788.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040823161720.89788.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 721
X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
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: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org
X-list: lojban-beginners

The rest of you should note that this isn't even *close* to begginer
Lojban.

Oh, and xorxes is almost always right.  :-)

On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 09:17:20AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> 
> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 03:18:49AM -0400, Andrew Archibald wrote:
> > > 
> > > Proof that there are infinitely many prime numbers:
> > 
> > ni'o jarco lo du'u ci'i mulna'usle cei broda cu zasti
> 
> I suggest {jarco lo du'u ci'i da mulna'usle}. Otherwise, I would be
> tempted to ask {xo mulna'usle naku zasti}, "how many are the primes
> that don't exist"? 

Heh.

> > > 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
> > 
> > (This relies on a certain amount of listener generosity for "me'i
> > ci'i"; "ci'i nai" is another possibility.)
> 
> 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?

> > > Then construct the number that is one greater than the product of
> > > all the prime numbers in the list.  
> > 
> > .i ba bo finti ko'a goi lo namcu poi ve jmina li pa lo simxu pilji
> > be ro le se liste
> 
> i ca'e ko'a sumji li pa lo simpi'i be ro lu'a fo'a

Forgot ca'e too.

sumji is better than jmina.

> > > 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.

> mulpi'i: x1 pilji x2 x3 ije x1 e x2 e x3 mulnau

You mean mulna'u there, yes?  Why not just use pilji?

> i.e. "x1 is divisible by x2"

To me, "divisible" is more like fendi, but fair enough.

> > > So no finite list can contain all the prime numbers. 
> > 
> > .i se ni'i bo lo liste be me'i ci'i broda cu na kakne lo nu vasru ro
> > broda
> 
> i seni'ibo no liste be me'i ci'i broda cu liste ro broda

Ah, that's elegant.  Thanks.

[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".

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"