Date: Wed, 24 Dec 1997 06:36:38 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712241136.GAA25431@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: xor questions (was Re: indirect Qs (was Re: On logji lo X-To: jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 967 X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 24 06:36:38 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU >Lojbab: >> In addition, there are sets with sets as members >>Nested lu'X could be useful in building a set with "1 from column A and 1 >from >>column B". > >So you agree that {lu'a lu'i lu'i ci gerku} is a set of dogs, not a dog? >Whereas {lu'a lu'i ci gerku} is a dog? If you do agree, then you >must also agree that {lu'a lu'i} is not equivalent to plain {lu'a}. I haven't decided what lu'i ci gerku is, so I cannot yet answer. My instincts, for what they are wiorth, tell me that none of this has managed to break up the 3 dogs into individuals. ci gerku = pa gerku .e pa drata gerku .e pa drata gerku whereas I would expect "ce" instead of .e. to get 3 members. >>My intent, correcting for Cowan's comment re lu'a, would be something like >>do djica tu'a pa po'u pa lu'a le ckafi ce le tcati ce le ladru >> ^ma, I mean > >i lo selpinxe ki'e I think that is an invalid answer because "du" is mathematical equality. See my answer to John. lojbab