Re: fancu (was: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies

[Invent Yourself <xod@sixgirls.org>]

On Sun, 17 Feb 2002, Jorge Llambias wrote:

>
> la xod cusku di'e
>
> >1. xuda fancu lo'i selspe be mi lo'i ckana be ne'i le mi zdani
>
> Is there some function from the set of my spouses to the set
> of beds in my house?
>
> Here you are using the domain/range definition.
>
> I don't know. One such function might be given by
> "... is the bed of ...", assuming each of your spouses
> has one and only one bed.



OK, we agree on this usage!



> >2. fy. fancu le jei lo gerku cu xabju lo mi zdani kei le jei mi bilma
>
> Here you abandon the domain/range definition and go for a
> value/value one. Presumably you mean something like:



You seem to hastily resolve jei into a single value, whereas I lazily
resolve it.


> roda zo'u fy fancu le jei lo gerku cu xabju lo mi zdani ca da kei
> le jei mi bilma ca da

> Changing {le jei} to {le'i jei} would not be enough to take
> you to the domain/range definition, because {le'i jei mi bilma}
> has in principle only one member.


Yes, but until we know which member it is, we can't collapse it. It is the
difference between algebra and arithmetic.


> >3. da fancu fo lo ka ce'u po'u lo verba be mi cu kelci ce'u
>
> (The x2 of {verba} is the age. Do you mean {panzi}?)


Yes, thanks.


>
> This is how I would say what I guess you could mean by that:
>
> le du'u ce'u poi panzi mi cu kelci makau cu fancu
> What each of my children plays with is a function
> (presumably from each of my children to their toys.)


Well, they aren't playing with functions, unless they are playing with
the mapping between them and their toys (perhaps they are swapping and
haggling over toys for fun?)

As for makau, I will do anything to avoid it.

Other than verba/panzi, what else was wrong with #3?



-- 
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.