From sentto-44114-18100-1040524085-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat Dec 21 18:28:40 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 21 Dec 2002 18:28:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.82]) by digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Pvr2-00078I-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 18:28:36 -0800 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-18100-1040524085-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.67.196] by n26.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 22 Dec 2002 02:28:05 -0000 X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 22 Dec 2002 02:28:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 19298 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2002 02:28:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Dec 2002 02:28:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Dec 2002 02:28:04 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 6E0EC3C5D6; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:28:02 -0500 (EST) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com Message-Id: <0212212127470M.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: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:27:47 -0500 Subject: [lojban] Re: Lemma and conjecture Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 3612 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 Saturday 21 December 2002 19:57, Jorge Llambias wrote: > Assume that the conjecture is false. > > Then we must have two lerpoi: S1=CVVRC... and S2=CVVKC... > where R is one of r,n,l and K is some consonant other > than R and the two lerpoi have the same pattern of > vowels, consonants and clusters, and such that S1 is > a lujvo and S2 is not a valid word. (In no other position > could a difference in consonants have an effect on the > validity of the lerpoi as a brivla.) > > The initial CVV can't fall off from S2 because KC must > be an impermissible initial, to match the form of S1. > It is clearly not a possible slinku'i either. It is a > valid brivla as far as permissible clusters because S1 > is one, and it is not a lujvo because it would have to break > as CVV-KC... but the second part can't be a lujvo. So it > is a valid fu'ivla. So our assumption is wrong and the > conjecture must be true. > > Or am I missing something? You still have to prove that, if S1 is a lujvo and S2 a fu'ivla, there are no S3 related to S1 and S4 related in the same way to S2 such that one is valid and the other is invalid. phma To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/