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

["Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 05:55 PM 2/17/02 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> In Lojban, we say {la djan prenu} or {le mi pendo cu prenu}.
> We might say {le mi pendo cu du la djan}, but we don't say
> {la djan cu prenu le mi pendo} for "John is a person who
> is my friend". We don't have any predicates (other than {du})
> that have two places for the same argument. Apparently {fancu}
> is the other exception, since x1 and x4 appear to be places
> for the same argument. (The argument is NOT the referring
> expression, the argument is the referent of the expression.)

At the risk of throwing in an irrelevancy, since I haven't been following 
this thread, I don't see that x1 and x4 are the same thing at all.

The usage I had in mind in writing the place structure (in English, since I 
don't pretend to know how to effectively convey the mathematical concepts 
well enough to make the example useful).

f(x) [x1] is a function on domain x2 integers with range x3 even integers 
by expression/rule x4 li f(x)= x*2

change the domain x2 to real numbers and the range likewise, and call it 
g(x). the rule x4 has not changed but the function x1 is a different 
function. Therefore x1 and x4 cannot be the same argument.

(I think I may have considered at one time alternatively that x1 could be a 
specified set of ordered n-tuples for a function on n-1 variables. But I 
don't know if this would necessarily conflict with the other version of 
x1. It is possible that the only rule that could be used in x4 is to 
specify a complete mapping, in which case this MIGHT lead to x1 being the 
same as x4, I think, but again I'm not sure.)

(back to lurk mode)

lojbab


--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org