Date:  Wed, 24 Dec 1997 06:17:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199712241117.GAA25180@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Ashley Yakeley <AshleyB@HALCYON.COM>
Subject:      Re: Set Theory Woes
X-To:         Lojban List <LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 491
X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 24 06:17:37 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

At 1997-12-23 15:37, I wrote:

>Therefore, the "ce" (but probably not "ce'o") problem could be solved
>with a set-making cmavo that when applied to a single item referred to
>the set containing just that item, and when applied to a mass referred to
>the set containing all the items in the mass.

Pardon me, "lu'i" will do this. Does anyone have reasonable words for the
empty set, the empty mass, or the set difference operator?

--
fe'oca'emi'e tricrfraksizeicecmu .iji'a ca'emi'e .aclin.