Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0r9u9b-00007CC; Tue, 22 Nov 94 14:16 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6625; Tue, 22 Nov 94 14:17:11 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 6623; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 14:17:10 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1545; Tue, 22 Nov 1994 13:13:57 +0100 Date: Tue, 22 Nov 1994 14:15:49 +0200 Reply-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Sender: Lojban list From: Veijo Vilva Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Lambda Notation For Dummies (and & Rosta) & Lojban To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1636 Lines: 40 mi pu cusku di'e >> How about statements involving symmetry, like >> >> *do zmadu mi leka xa'eda ctuca xa'ede fo la lojban >> *le gapru cu filmau le cnita leka klama xa'eda xa'ede la xorxes cusku di'e > Date: Mon, 21 Nov 1994 19:30:40 EST > From: Jorge Llambias > Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Lambda Notation For Dummies (and & Rosta) & Lojban > And what would these mean? Do you exceed me in the property of being > the teacher or the one taught? Does the up exceed the down in being > the gone to or the gone from? I think you want to leave only one of > the lambda variables in each of those examples. The idea was to consider xa'eda associating with one sumti of the main bridi and xa'ede with the other to get a reciprocity which I feel cannot satisfactorily be expressed using {soi} (we would have the same problem with the second sumti within the abstraction as we had with the first one before the introduction of {xa'e}) or {simxu} (who would be the second party in the mutuality) in a context like this, i.e. I was after comparing 'you teaching me' to 'me teaching you' and 'going from above to below' to 'going from below to above'. But I guess it doesn't quite work like that. Would be nice, though. If we cannot think of 'real' multi-lambda properties, I think we just might allow a usage like this - it is a matter of definition, and no more far-fetched than the notion of {xa'e} in the first place. > co'o mi'e xorxes -- co'o mi'e veion --------------------------------- .i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy. ---------------------------------