| In a message dated 9/21/2001 11:15:59 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
<> > Presumably you will allow {la dubia frica la tclsis ce'u} > > where I would want {la dubias frica le tclsis le ka ce'u du makau}? > > Why that presumption? I am not sure. It's the natural extension of this abuse of notation: using But {ce'u} is not any function at all, and certainly not the identity function. It is just a bound variable of a certain type, one that creates functions to types of objects out of those types of objects by putting in the holes. <> <Or will you insist on using > {le du be ce'u} there? Is {ce'u} by itself a function or does > it depend on {le} to turn it into one?> > Well, the don't differ in {le du be ce'u}, since each is self identical and > that function of course is the identity function -- x in, x out. But the value of the function will be different for each! How is this different from the {le mamta be ce'u} case? In both cases there is one function wich gives different values for each of them as argument. They no doubt differ in {le ka makau du ce'u}, in "who they are".> Right you are, they do differ in le du be ce'u. I got off on the fact that this is a pretty pointless one, since, if we know they differ at all, they differ in this way, so this is not very informative. But itis true. Thanks for reminding me. <> As to the second question, neither: {ce'u} > creaes a function of the appropriate sort (one from arguments to whatever the > matrix is with a regular sumti) out of whatever it is stuck into as a sumti. Except where the matrix is the minimal sumti place itself? Why can't ce'u stand for the identity function?> The matrix here is a proposition, so {ce'u} in it creates a property. To be sure, as you just pointed out, one of the arguments to this property that yields a truth is the identity function. So, in that sense (application of function to argument) I suppose {ce'u} can stand for the identity function, along with several other functions, including {le du'u makau du ce'u}. I don't see the thread of this argument at the moment, though, since that fact does not fit in with where I thought you were going or where you need to be going to make some sort of case here against {ce'u}in sentences or sumti. <I don't think this is only about {djuno}. Is there any predicate at all that will accept both {le broda} and {le du'u makau broda} indifferently? > I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised ({te tavla} looks like a case at first glance). Again, what is the point here? I thought your concern was about two abstractions, {le broda be ce'u} (a function to individuals) and {le du'u makau broda} (a set of propositions). Why point to a concretum instead, {le broda}? It seems irrelevant. <You really don't see any parallel between the {le broda}: {le du'u makau broda} pair and the {le broda be ce'u}:{le du'u makau broda ce'u} one? Sure, I see a parallel; the first are (very loosely) instances of the second, with the {ce'u} applied to the same argument ({zo'e}, I suppose). So? The fact remains that one of the first is a concretum, the other an abstractum, while both of the second pair are abstracts -- and it isthe role of abstracts that I claim allows them to function in the same environment. So the problems (if there are any) with a concretum and an abstract in the same place have no bearing on the issue. Yoou seem to be regularly confusing a function with its values and thatis likely to lead to a (n even more) serious mass of misunderstandings -- which it seems to have done. |