From sentto-44114-18091-1040432907-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Fri Dec 20 17:09:03 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:09:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from n7.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.91]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18PY8R-00027q-00 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 17:08:59 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-18091-1040432907-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.96] by n7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 21 Dec 2002 01:08:28 -0000 X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 21 Dec 2002 01:08:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 38696 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2002 01:08:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Dec 2002 01:08:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 2002 01:08:27 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3057C3C477; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:08:26 -0500 (EST) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com Message-Id: <0212202008210F.17068@neofelis> From: Pierre Abbat MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:08:21 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: Lemma and conjecture Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 3602 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Thursday 19 December 2002 18:17, Jorge Llambias wrote: > (Is the conjecture at all related to the lemma?) Only in that both are part of proving the valfendi algorithm. > I'm not sure what the status of {ke'unsazri} or {ke'upsazri} is. > Are they valid fu'ivla, because they can't be lujvo, or are they > not valid fu'ivla, because there are possible lujvo of the form > CVVC/CVCCV? If they are valid fu'ivla, then I can't see how the > conjecture could possibly be false. If they are not valid fu'ivla, > then obviously the conjecture is false. AFAIK they are valid fu'ivla, because they can't be lujvo. I don't see how it can be false either, but it has to be proved, and that seems to be a nadnabmi. phma To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/