From mbays@sdf.lonestar.org Tue Jan 28 08:48:28 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:48:28 -0800 (PST) Received: from vinland.freeshell.org ([207.202.214.139] helo=sdf.lonestar.org ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18dYuN-00079t-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 08:48:23 -0800 Received: (from mbays@localhost) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id h0SGmEw03278; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:48:14 GMT Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 16:48:14 +0000 (UTC) From: Martin Bays To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e In-Reply-To: <20030127235218.GS17154@digitalkingdom.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-archive-position: 3931 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: mbays@freeshell.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Mon, 27 Jan 2003, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:52:18 -0800 > From: Robin Lee Powell > Reply-To: lojban-list@lojban.org > To: lojban-list@lojban.org > Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2003 at 11:29:53PM +0000, Martin Bays wrote: > > Sorry I'm so late to reply - I haven't been getting list emails since > > saturday, just happened to amble onto the Yahoo version. I don't > > remember offending anyone enough to motivate them to chuck me off the > > list... did I? > > freeshell.org wasn't resolving; probably the SQL worm. You should have > recieved ~8 mails from the list several hours ago. Yes, seems sorted now. thanks. > > > 'Scuse weird formatting - copy&pasted from Yahoo > > Since the formatting is so icky, I'm dropping anything I have no > important commentary on. > Yes, this thread has been getting a bit knotted, hasn't it? I'll do likewise from now on. > > > > Any idea, for example, how best to translate ('scuse amateur ASCII > > > graphics): > > > > > > | | > > > | | A > > > \_/ i > > > i in I > > > > > > ("The union over I of A sub i"), which is the same as > > > > > > | | > > > | | {A : i in I} > > > \_/ i > > > > > > where that big union is my sorselcmipi'i (or sorkuzselcmi)? Do > > > we need yet another lujvo, or is there a nice translation of > > > that set? I don't think {lu'i .abu boi xi .ibu poi .ibu cmima > > > tau .ibu} really works. > > > > The set of A_i where i is a member of I. Looks fine to me. > > > > Really? Cool. I'm still not sure I like it, though, if only because > > I'm not completely sure how quantification with letterals (and other > > non-DA pro-sumti) really works. And also what poi-clauses without a > > ke'a mean. > > Same as the same poi clause with ke'a as the first entry. > > > Are they really just the equivalent of the English "such that", or the > > mathematical "s.t."/":"/"|"? > > When attached to da and friends, yes. > > > Don't suppose you could point me towards something which explains it > > all? > > It's in the red book somewhere. 8) > > Chapter 16, S4. > No, that's not what I meant. I get all that stuff. Sorry, I was far from clear (damned rarbau thinking). What I meant was that in {lu'i .abu boi xi .ibu poi .ibu cmima tau .ibu}, the poi phrase isn't (I think) binding to the .ibu, which is just a lerfu string as part of the subscript, and if I understand my EBNF right NOI can only bind to a sumti. The entire {.abu boi xi .ibu} is acting as a sumti here, so the poi relates to that. And the poi phrase gives a condition on .ibu, and hence on a *part of the description* of ke'a, rather than ke'a itself. So what I'm asking is - is this valid? Does it have the obvious meaning? Similarly, is {lo broda be da ku poi da brode} legit? Would anything change if ko'a or .ibu replaced da? How about if ko'a had been used before, and still had scope, or if a recent sumti had a description beginning with an .ibu? Also, and relatedly, is {ro boi .ibu poi kacna'u zo'u .ibu broda} quantifying over .ibu, or is the prenex just giving a subject restricting whatever .ibu already refers to to natural numbers? To keep clear of these difficulties, I've been using constructs like {ro da poi kacna'u zi'e goi .ibu zo'u .ibu broda}, which I think works but is a bit ugly+wordy. Sorry about all the questions, but this has been worrying me a bit lately. > > > > Well, if you don't mind giving a shot at the complex analysis > > thing, I'd appreciate it. > > > > Then I will. Ummm... I still will. Soon. > > > > I'll mail my crypto prof about his Elliptic Curves book, if > > anyone's interested in reading a book on elliptic curve cyphers. > > 8) > > > > In lojban? Of course! > > Well, would anyone else be interested I wonder. 8) > Ahem. Lojbanists? I think that was your cue... > > BTW, I'm nearly done with > > > > [29]http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/hobbies/lojban/algebra.txt > > > > Pretty impressive. Which I guess is a compliment to Nick's translation > > skills, your translation skills, and the ability of Lojban to > > represent maths. Huzzah all round! > > Woohoo! So it matches the original OK, then? > I haven't checked carefully, but it accords pretty well with my memory of the original. > I've been told I have moderately scary abilities at back-translation; I > think it was Jay who said that. > > --- #^t'm::>#shs>:#,_$1+9j9"^>h>" < v :>8*0\j" o'u" v" e'i" v".neta"^q> ;z,[; > > ^