Message-Id: <199602101545.RAA08770@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 10 Feb 1996 10:44:25 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      *old response on lambda issues
To: Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1105
Lines: 23

>la djan cusku di'e
>> Granted that no number (quantitas) is involved, nonetheless \lambda(x) is
>> parallel to \E x and \A x.
>
>Parallel in what sense?  Ex and Ax bind the variable, i.e. together with
>an expression F(x) they give a proposition.

The more I read this debate, the more I want to see the grammar of the
lambda element specified explicitly rather than tied to quantifiers or
ke'a or whatever out of convenience.  If we are going to have a separate
selma'o, maybe we need seperate grammar rules for occurances of that
selma'o.  Any idea how many new rules this would take?  If 10-20, I'll
live with slop.  If 4-5 vs. the 2-3 needed to make lambda the equivalent
to quantifier_300, I am not so sure.

On resolving question is whether, in statements of lambda calculus, the
lambda we are using DOES act like a number.  In other words - what
grammatical role would the new cmavo play in a purely mathelogical
discussion?  Does this role then cross over to non-mathematical usage
effectively?  If not, we may have a broader question about
transferability of MEX to non-MEX expressions.

lojbab