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 m0r7p8D-00006rC; Wed, 16 Nov 94 20:30 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 3390; Wed, 16 Nov 94 20:31:08 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 3388; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 20:31:07 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 6197; Wed, 16 Nov 1994 19:27:56 +0100 Date: Wed, 16 Nov 1994 13:15:03 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: PROPOSAL: Lambda Notation For Dummies (and & Rosta) & Lojban X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: <199411160556.AA08322@nfs2.digex.net> from "Jorge Llambias" at Nov 15, 94 08:44:51 pm Content-Length: 946 Lines: 24 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.