From jcowan@reutershealth.com Thu Mar 25 19:42:51 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: jcowan@reutershealth.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 54442 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2004 16:34:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Mar 2004 16:34:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.reutershealth.com) (65.246.141.36) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2004 16:34:58 -0000 Received: from skunk.reutershealth.com (mail [65.246.141.36]) by mail.reutershealth.com (Pro-8.9.3/Pro-8.9.3) with SMTP id LAA05745; Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:25:04 -0500 (EST) Received: by skunk.reutershealth.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:31:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 11:31:10 -0500 To: Pierre Abbat Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-ID: <20040325163110.GC25199@skunk.reutershealth.com> References: <200403250931.i2P9VLb16669@xahlee.org> <200403250748.31923.phma@webjockey.net> <20040325142907.GB2972@ccil.org> <200403250937.05063.phma@webjockey.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200403250937.05063.phma@webjockey.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 65.246.141.36 From: jcowan@reutershealth.com Subject: Re: [lojban] fi'u was Re:lanzu usage X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=8122456 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21815 Pierre Abbat scripsit: > fi'u is (sqrt(5)+1)/2; fi'ufi'u is (sqrt(5)-1)/2. They are multiplicative > inverses. To six places, they are 1.618034 and 0.618034. Fair enough, but you should document this on the Wiki. > li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa .i li te'o te'a pai pi'i ka'o du li ni'u pa .i roxy. ro.y.bu rozy. nony. zo'u li xy. te'a ny. su'i .y.bu te'a ny. du li zy. te'a ny. .ije li ny. zmadu li re This last raises the question of whether it's legitimate to use lerfu in prenexes to represent bound variables. Currently, the only bound variables are da, de, di and variants thereof, but this really isn't enough for stating proofs, and it's too remote from mathematical convention. Do we get into trouble if we allow uses like the above, rather than the straight interpretation "For all of the in-mind-things-beginning-with-X"? Note that I'm using conventional operator priorities, as licensed by the Red Book. -- Do what you will, John Cowan this Life's a Fiction jcowan@reutershealth.com And is made up of http://www.reutershealth.com Contradiction. --William Blake http://www.ccil.org/~cowan