From pycyn@aol.com Mon Feb 18 06:50:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 18 Feb 2002 14:50:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 95071 invoked from network); 18 Feb 2002 14:50:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Feb 2002 14:50:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Feb 2002 14:50:08 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.185.3c6c3e1 (4013) for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:49:48 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <185.3c6c3e1.29a26e8c@aol.com> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 09:49:48 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_185.3c6c3e1.29a26e8c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13345 --part1_185.3c6c3e1.29a26e8c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/17/2002 9:43:25 PM Central Standard Time, cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes: > > To remind yet one last time, it is important that the phrase used to refer > to > > the function in fancu4 not be the same one as is used in fancu1 or a > large > > portion (though not all, if the range and domain are included) of the > > information value is lost. "sin is the function from angles to [-1,1] > > computed by sin(x) = y." is not quite a tautology but only marginally > more > > informative. > > I confess I have not read all the messages in this thread, but it > seems clear to me that fancu1 is the function itself (which, not being > linguistic, cannot appear directly in a sentence, but must be represented > by a name of some sort), whereas fancu4 is a text, a lambda expression > (such as '\x.x+1'). > Literally? That is, {lu ...... li'u}? Or {le du'u makau .... ce'u}? For the latter is a function, that is, the name of a function so representing a function in the text, and so not an expression. --part1_185.3c6c3e1.29a26e8c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/17/2002 9:43:25 PM Central Standard Time, cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes:


> To remind yet one last time, it is important that the phrase used to refer to
> the function in fancu4 not be the same one as is used in fancu1 or a large
> portion (though not all, if the range and domain are included) of the
> information value is lost.  "sin is the function from angles to [-1,1]
> computed by sin(x) = y." is not quite a tautology but only marginally more
> informative.

I confess I have not read all the messages in this thread, but it
seems clear to me that fancu1 is the function itself (which, not being
linguistic, cannot appear directly in a sentence, but must be represented
by a name of some sort), whereas fancu4 is a text, a lambda expression
(such as '\x.x+1').


Literally?  That is, {lu ...... li'u}?  Or {le du'u makau .... ce'u}?  For the latter is a function, that is, the name of a function so representing a function in the text, and so not an expression. --part1_185.3c6c3e1.29a26e8c_boundary--