From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Sun Sep 01 09:41:05 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:41:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root)
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 17lXmZ-0005d3-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 01 Sep 2002 09:41:03 -0700
Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g81GjUwD015118
	for <lojban-list@lojban.org>; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:45:30 -0500 (CDT)
	(envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com)
Received: (from fracture@localhost)
	by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g81GjTYj015117
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:45:29 -0500 (CDT)
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:45:29 -0500
From: Jordan DeLong <fracture@allusion.net>
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: Set stuff
Message-ID: <20020901164529.GA14957@allusion.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i
X-archive-position: 896
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In
   le selcmi be ro selcmi poi ke'a na cmima ke'a
as a translation of "The set of all sets which aren't members of
themselves", I ran into a question about set gadri.  If I have "le
selcmi", the sumti already refers to a set (individually), right?
Is it neccesary to use "le'i selcmi"?  Or would "le'i selcmi"
actually mean something else?  (ba'a: le'i selcmi =3D=3D piro le'i su'o
selcmi =3D=3D the whole of the set of some sets?).

Which leads me to my next question.  If the above is correct, is it
better to say something more like:
   le'i ro selcmi poi ke'a na cmima ke'a
or even the traji concise:
   lo'i selcmi be na'ebo ri

I'm liking the last one at this point (but not entirely sure if
it's correct use of set operators).  Also; I'm not sure if that ri
works properly; I know ri looks back to the first "complete" sumti,
so perhaps that wouldn't work there... Can ya use ke'a in a be?  If
so then perhaps
   lo'i selcmi be na'ebo ke'a
would fix the ri problem... Anyone have a better suggestion for the
translation?

--=20
Jordan DeLong
fracture@allusion.net


--0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE9ckQpDrrilS51AZ8RAlfRAKCdzREMuBSX0XTlA2/DGvNy9m6gSQCdGNIj
jPTlL0RUyg0UKc8FKJrsRQE=
=nn51
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--0OAP2g/MAC+5xKAE--