From: Logical Language Group Message-Id: <199411161815.AA18117@access2.digex.net> Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Lambda Notation For Dummies (and & Rosta) & Lojban Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 13:15:03 -0500 (EST) Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net (Logical Language Group) In-Reply-To: <199411160556.AA08322@nfs2.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 15, 94 08:44:51 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24beta] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Length: 921 Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 16 13:15:12 1994 X-From-Space-Address: lojbab mi pu cusku di'e > > This proposal involves creating an explicit "lambda quantifier", which would > > formally belong to selma'o PA but would be attached only to da-series KOhA > > or BY cmavo. la xorxes. cusku di'e > Any reason why this is preferred to a simple KOhA? Well, one point is that "a simple KOhA" could only be a singleton. If we want to have properties or mekso with two lambda variables, we'd have to subscript them, which is unmathematical: it's \lambda(x), not \lambda. > Also, it would be nice if we could just use {ke'a} for it. Its function is > very similar, and the problems that might arise in rare cases of embedding > arise already anyway as it is, so in theory subscripts have to be used. I'll consider this one. "ke'a" is pretty narrowly defined, and I don't know that I favor extending it. -- John Cowan sharing account for now e'osai ko sarji la lojban.