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

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

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@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