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

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

In a message dated 2/17/2002 5:43:35 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

>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.

Too strong; only requires that each has a bed -- they might all have the same one, which might or might not be the only one in the house.  No evidence this is meant to be a bijection or even a surjection.

<>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}?)

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.)>

As it stands, it is a function from ordered pairs of <child, toy> to propositions.  Yours is a different function.  I'm not sure which xod meant.

<{lo'e namcu} is the number archetype, numbers in general.
{loi namcu} is the mass of numbers.>

Which is it, the number archetype or numbers in general (whatever that means, but pretty clearly not a single object like an archetype)? 

<xod, > xorxes
> 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?)>

"What each of my children play with" is the name of a function from children to toys, maybe not the best way putting it,  What they play with is the value of that function for each of them.

Put the {du} first then:

  fy du le du'u makau sumji ce'u li pa kei noi fancu ro namcu pa namcu

>(goi} by fundamentalist me is for assigning identities to free
>floating terms like literals and other KOhA, not for specifying functions.

That's just what 'fy' is.>

I can see I am going to have to stop making trivial mistakes to get you to focus on central issues.  But, on the other hand, since the issue is just that you don't like a gismu and I don't mind it, while I don't care much for your "corrections," I don't suppose the mistakes are more trivial than the central issue -- misinformation in the arguments aside.

<><<I number,
>Then we're missing an important predicate: "x1 maps value x2 to
>value x3". I still think that would be the most useful place
>structure for {fancu}, and that's how it has mostly been used
>as far as x2 and x3 are concerned. (The use of x1 and x4 seems
>to vary much more wildly.)>
>Tsk, tsk.  Not by any mathematician I know.

How many mathematicians you know have been using Lojban?
The person who has used {fancu} most is xod, I would think.

Not many using Lojban (I haven't checked Carter's usage) but a lot who spend time specifying functions (they tend to call it "defining," but I won't hold that against them.

<<I number,
>But this is just {x3 uizbangi
>x2}, which is what you specified whizbang for in the first place.

I don't think in any of the uses I've seen of {fancu} there was
a new word specified at all.>

Well, it doesn't have to be a new new word, a reminder about an old familiar one will do as well.

<I would much rather say:

  xuda fancu le selspe be mi pa ckana be ne'i le mi zdani
  Is there a function that assigns to each of my spouses
  a bed in my house?>

Why is this better?  What does it do that the corresponding class forms don't do?  And the corresponding class forms are standard -- often cited as an advantage.

<I have no idea in what context this question might be useful though.
You're not even asking that the function be one-to-one, so more than
one spouse might end up in the same bed.>

So, why is this an objection? Most functions are not 1-1 and are specified on as injections not surjections.

<That it has two {ce'u}. So it is a function from (child,toy)
pairs into what?>

It's labelled (somewhat old-fashionedly) as taking propositions as values.

> fancu1 = fancu4 always, doesn't it? Aside from {du}, is there
> any other selbri with this curious behaviour?

Actually, I think it's pretty common. Most obviously, the 'mass'
gismu: 'gunma' (x1=x2) and 'girzu' (x1=x3, at least with your
masses-instead-of-sets usage), and of course all the PAmei's, when you
use masses as the second place. >

No, the mass is in Lojban a different thing from the things that compose it, as is a group (Quine would not like this, but the logics are surely different). But the second place of {PAmei} is labelled a set.

<Also, I think that 'material' places
end up repeating the x1 of the bridi. If the place structure is 'x1 is
a widget of material x2', isn't the x2 the same as the x1? In 'ti
dilnu le jacygapci', 'ti' and 'le jacygapci' refer to the same thing,
don't they? >

A better case, especially with {le} and maybe even with {lo}.

<As for 'fancu', I would use the
function in the first place and ignore the fourth, if you want a name
your can still use 'fancu cmene' or 'jaime'e fancu'>

Would you really, if you were going to use the critter a lot or if you were explaining it or reminding someone what it is for something like successor or sine or any other common function  or special one you needed?  People often don't and it is handy to have this device available.