Re: [lojban] Lemma and conjecture

[Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 08:08 PM 12/20/02 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
>On Thursday 19 December 2002 18:17, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > (Is the conjecture at all related to the lemma?)
>
>Only in that both are part of proving the valfendi algorithm.
>
> > I'm not sure what the status of {ke'unsazri} or {ke'upsazri} is.
> > Are they valid fu'ivla, because they can't be lujvo, or are they
> > not valid fu'ivla, because there are possible lujvo of the form
> > CVVC/CVCCV? If they are valid fu'ivla, then I can't see how the
> > conjecture could possibly be false. If they are not valid fu'ivla,
> > then obviously the conjecture is false.
>
>AFAIK they are valid fu'ivla, because they can't be lujvo.

There are more rules limiting fu'ivla than that.  Indeed for Type IV 
fu'ivla, there are (probably) more rules limiting them than have been 
identified.

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



To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/