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

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

la pycyn cusku di'e

> 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.

Each spouse must have one and only one bed if it's going to be a function. If you allow more than one bed per spouse it is not a function. I did not say that each spouse had to have a different bed, nor that all beds had to be had.

<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.

It was not an objection. It was bewilderment as to the circumstances when one would want to use such a sentence.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com