Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la pycyn cusku di'e

> Jeez, ya mean I've been teaching set theory wrong for 35 years -- including
> the adequacy proofs? Of course 1 as a function has no domain: look at it, 
> NO
> argument, ergo no domain.

Then it's a different function than the one xod and I had been
discussing. We were talking of one that mapped a series of
propositions to a constant value of 1.

Is a function the way you use the word something different than
a mapping?

> <Of course we need names for functions. What we don't need is
> a place for the name in the predicate for 'function'!>
>
> But the function of {fancu} is precisely to introduce/define functions -- 
> not
> an easy thing to do otherwise -- at least wordy.

It would be interesting to see actual examples. I can think
of ways to introduce/define a function that do not involve
a place for the name. For example, if we want to define the
function F as the mapping from x to x+1 we can say:

sa'e roda zo'u fancu da le sumji be da bei li pa boi fy
def: For all x, x is mapped to x+1 by the function F.

I don't see the need to put {zo fy} in the x1 place.

mu'o mi'e xorxes






_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com