[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies

In a message dated 2/15/2002 9:10:43 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

Would you mind giving a definition of domain? I'm thinking
of the set of values such that they are mapped by the function
to a value in the range. For example, the function f(x)=1
maps any real number to 1. I don't understand how a mapping
with an empty domain works.

All that is required for a function is that every value in the domain receives exactly one in the range.  This condition is vacuously satisfied for the empty set as domain.

<I place. x1 the in fy} {zo put to need see don?t>Oh, it's just the first place you mind.  Well, it is natural to say
>is the funtion from nats to nats such that...",

I notice you didn't write " 'Whizbang' is the name of the
function... ", i.e. you used the name, you didn't mention it.
Why do we need to mention it in Lojban?>

Because the English is systematically incorrect; the habit is to omit quotes "where they are obvious" and Lojban takes the position that in these kinds of things they are never obvious.  Occasionally even a logician (usually one with good Medieval training) will remember and do it right.

<<I place. x1 the in fy} {zo put to need see don?t>As I said, even for introducing functions it seems to me
like a really bad choice. And the English keyword is misleading.
It suggests that x1 is the function, but apparently it is not,
it is the function's name.>

Agreed; it goes on the ever-growing list of changes needed.  At least it doesn't leave out anything important as some seem to do.