In a message dated 2/17/2002 9:43:25 PM Central Standard Time, cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes:
> To remind yet one last time, it is important that the phrase used to refer to
> the function in fancu4 not be the same one as is used in fancu1 or a large
> portion (though not all, if the range and domain are included) of the
> information value is lost. "sin is the function from angles to [-1,1]
> computed by sin(x) = y." is not quite a tautology but only marginally more
> informative.
I confess I have not read all the messages in this thread, but it
seems clear to me that fancu1 is the function itself (which, not being
linguistic, cannot appear directly in a sentence, but must be represented
by a name of some sort), whereas fancu4 is a text, a lambda _expression_
(such as '\x.x+1').
Literally? That is, {lu ...... li'u}? Or {le du'u makau .... ce'u}? For the latter is a function, that is, the name of a function so representing a function in the text, and so not an _expression_.
|