From thinkit8@lycos.com Wed Sep 26 19:55:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 27 Sep 2001 02:54:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 60301 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 02:54:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 27 Sep 2001 02:54:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n24.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.2.111) by mta1 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 02:55:30 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: thinkit8@lycos.com Received: from [10.1.10.96] by ef.egroups.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2001 02:55:30 -0000 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 02:55:26 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: more about ce'u and functions Message-ID: <9ou4eu+st63@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1669 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 24.4.254.136 From: thinkit8@lycos.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11095 --- In lojban@y..., "Jorge Llambias" wrote: > > Let's consider two predicates, broda and brode, with the > same extensions but different intensions, i.e. two different > predicates such that {roda rode zo'u go da de broda gi da de brode}. > > Now hopefully we will all agree that {le du'u ko'a broda ko'e} > and {le du'u ko'a brode ko'e} are two different propositions > (which happen to have the same truth value), with different > meaning. On the other hand, {le broda be ko'e} and > {le brode be ko'e} both have the same referent (namely ko'a, > if {ko'a broda ko'e}). > > Now then, {le du'u makau broda ce'u} and {le du'u makau brode ce'u} > are different functions into propositions: they each give a different > proposition for any given value of ce'u. > > What about {le broda be ce'u} and {le brode be ce'u}, assuming > this is a valid way of using {ce'u} (I don't think it is, but > for the sake of argument)? Both give the same values for any given > value of ce'u. Do the two expressions refer to the same function, > the way that both {le broda} and {le brode} refer to the same > object? > > If they both refer to the same function, then this is clearly > not what we normally want as a te frica, since what we want > there is the intension, not the extension. > > If they refer to different functions, this is a further violation > of the usual meaning of {le}, which is normally extensional. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp .oiro'e la'edi'u traji pluja .i .au kelci