From lojban+bncCOib25n_BhDQj_PvBBoELtemcw@googlegroups.com Sat Jun 18 08:44:31 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QXxhC-00074p-OY; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:44:30 -0700 Received: by fxm14 with SMTP id 14sf5122067fxm.16 for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:44:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=kLjFTv1ehXfyoRrgx3coTduzeobdqGXgjHpHk5QdXLk=; b=wi5m4e1ZPqng5XPcwN7TUYWe6RRPyLYXHAq16yqw+z34DNOShyR9nb7V9Um+n+3z2S Zj21HFOLD+QXuwm+Hxe0rs79it/eOxcAazsxyv5vlhq6AbqkPcMaZpSDfGfj6tKTkaii 4IpXIiGsf6yvuF5FSi+1sxkp6HDmS4Bgd4NWE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=bcaZUyKsaZBVuJjoV/N7QtcrIlJjeLmdeVjIeRry/xisqvOlBwTg8XfFHE63vJfL8O KPQ9U5mjH3Sl7lCf1z63b1S+QCozyPQys/CdpYUP1hHcN1Cy427sQlUgu5lr9lbe5LrD w/e4bGKRiF4I9mxa5sprddwh8j17nQT4JXHds= Received: by 10.223.25.214 with SMTP id a22mr696659fac.27.1308411856126; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:44:16 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.16.207 with SMTP id p15ls1676bka.3.gmail; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.14.200 with SMTP id h8mr241262bka.13.1308411854934; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.14.200 with SMTP id h8mr241261bka.13.1308411854900; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f44.google.com (mail-bw0-f44.google.com [209.85.214.44]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z3si1910696bkb.0.2011.06.18.08.44.14 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.44; Received: by bwz13 with SMTP id 13so4895434bwz.17 for ; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:44:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.42.69 with SMTP id r5mr2523305bke.52.1308411854629; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.50.152 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Jun 2011 08:44:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2011 11:44:14 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Category theory in lojban, or coining words From: Alex Rozenshteyn To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rpglover64@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec554e01ad0abac04a5fe5fa8 --bcaec554e01ad0abac04a5fe5fa8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 mu'i lo su'u kucli ku da xu .e ma vu'o poi ke'a se mriste ti curve bo cmaci certu zmadu be mi Out of curiosity, is anyone on this list more experienced in pure math (pardon the malgli) than I am? On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:50 AM, Escape Landsome wrote: > coi > > What this suggests me is that some inheritance mechanism is necessary. > > For instance, one can argue that addition in the case of natural > numbers is a particular case of concatenation for sequences of the > same unit "I". > > (i.e.: III & IIII = IIIIIII captures the meaning of 3 + 4 = 7, yet > concatenation is more general than addition, for IIJ & JJII = IIJJJII > has no equivalent in the natural integers set) > > So, if there were a word for "concatenation", say this is the word C, > it should bear some relation with the word for "integer addition", say > it is the word A. > > C ---> A > > For the same reason, "integer addition" should bear a strong > relationship with real addition, or complex addition. > > Natural languages resolve this problem by using the word "sum" for all > additions, and by coining usages of "con-caten-ation", or ' other > types of "sums" ' for the other cases... > > Regards > > -- .esk > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > -- Alex R -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --bcaec554e01ad0abac04a5fe5fa8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable mu'i lo su'u kucli ku da xu .e ma vu'o poi ke'a se mriste t= i curve bo cmaci certu zmadu be mi

Out of curiosity, is anyone on th= is list more experienced in pure math (pardon the malgli) than I am?

On Sat, Jun 18, 2011 at 5:50 AM, Escape Land= some <escaaape@g= mail.com> wrote:
coi

What this suggests me is that some inheritance mechanism is necessary.

For instance, one can argue that addition in the case of natural
numbers is a particular case of concatenation for sequences of the
same unit "I".

(i.e.: =A0III & IIII =3D IIIIIII captures the meaning of 3 + 4 =3D 7, y= et
concatenation is more general than addition, for IIJ & JJII =3D IIJJJII=
has no equivalent in the natural integers set)

So, if there were a word for "concatenation", say this is the wor= d C,
it should bear some relation with the word for "integer addition"= , say
it is the word A.

C ---> A

For the same reason, "integer addition" should bear a strong
relationship with real addition, or complex addition.

Natural languages resolve this problem by using the word "sum" fo= r all
additions, and by coining usages of "con-caten-ation", or ' o= ther
types of "sums" ' for the other cases...

Regards

-- .esk

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.




--
=A0=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Alex R

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--bcaec554e01ad0abac04a5fe5fa8--