From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Sep 26 18:37:48 2001
Return-Path: <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 27 Sep 2001 01:36:38 -0000
Received: (qmail 54210 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 01:36:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 27 Sep 2001 01:36:38 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.90)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 01:37:47 -0000
Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC;
	 Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:37:47 -0700
Received: from 200.69.11.4 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP;
	Thu, 27 Sep 2001 01:37:47 GMT
X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.4]
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Bcc: 
Subject: more about ce'u and functions
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 01:37:47 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F90FFFj4W8itEwO2j8K000096ba@hotmail.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2001 01:37:47.0851 (UTC) FILETIME=[033F81B0:01C146F5]
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11092


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