RE: [jboske] interpretation of LAhE (was: RE: Digest Number 136

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la and cusku di'e

> > For example, lu'i would be defined as something
> > like:
> >
> > lu'i Qx = da poi ge Qx cmima ke'a
> > gi no de poi na du x cu cmima ke'a
>
> The second x is unbound.

You're right, that's why I didn't want to use a lojban variable,
I meant it to be just a word replacement. Let's see:

lu'i Q de poi broda = da poi ge Q de poi broda cu cmima ke'a
gi no de poi na du su'o di poi broda cu cmima ke'a

Or more succintly:


lu'i Q broda = da poi ge Q broda cu cmima ke'a
gi no de poi na broda cu cmima ke'a

> > and the same formula would apply without the quantifier
>
> In which case, we are also disagreeing about the meaning of Fx,
> since F is not being treated as a function.

It reduces to a function when the quantifier is outside. In that
case we have:

lu'i ko'a = le pa da poi ge ko'a cu cmima ke'a
gi no de poi na du ko'a cu cmima ke'a

> > I'm not sure I see the point of having LAhE at all if they
> > are transparent
>
> When you have true functions, treating them as predicates
> involves redundant quantification (or some other redundant sort
> of gadri use). Transparent LAhE avoid this redundancy.

Yes, but at too high a cost.

If I understand correctly, you would have {lu'i ko'a},
{lu'o ko'a} and {lu'a ko'a} make sense only in the case
where {ko'a} is a set. So for example:

lu'i lo'i broda = lo'i broda
lu'i le'i broda = le'i broda
lu'i ro se cmima = ro se cmima
lu'i loi se cmima =? loi se cmima
lu'i ro mlatu = nonsense
lu'i su'o mlatu = nonsense

Is that correct?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail