In a message dated 2/16/2002 5:11:33 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:But it would always be a duplication of the argument. But, just like {du} the difference between the two references to the same thing is significant: Frege's puzzle could be ask as well as "How is 'successor (n) = n+1', if true, different from 'successor (n) = successor (n)'?" and, as always, the answer is, "Because, though both get to the same object, the first does so using different senses (because different names) and so is informative, while the other uses the same names (and so) and so is vacuous." You do want the device for specifying a function to specify the right function after all and also to be informative. I dsuppose that {smuni} works more or less the same way, and there are probably others with this kind of role to play. <>I don't think there is anything objectionable in the definition of {fancu}, >properly understood. Then maybe I haven't understood it properly yet. Having two places for the same argument is objectionable to me.> And so it is if the they approach with the same sense, but generally this will not be the case. <(And having domain and range instead of values belonging to the domain and range in x2 and x3 is even more objectionable.)> Now here I worry about whether we are in a terminological muddle. Why is it better to say, for fancu2 fancu 3, {ro da poi numcu ku'o de poi numcu} than {lo'e numcu lo'e numcu}? I can, of course, see the advantage of saying (ro da poi numcu ku'o le sumji be da bei li pa}, but, as I have said, I think this complicates things and and muddles two things together that I would want to keep separate (mainly because I want to talk about ranges even when I have no idea how to do the computations). I would think that the mapping metaphor naturally applied to regions, not points. In any case, I don't find the present arrangement objectionable. |