In a message dated 2/18/2002 8:30:17 PM Central Standard Time, cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes:> Only if we can agree how to say "\x.x*2" You seem not to like {le du'u makau {makau} is used to distinguish the value -- the output-- from the argument (input). What you have written is a propositional function, whose output is either a claim or a truth value for each pair of values submitted. I see we have to go throuhg the whole {ka}-{du'u} bit again to sort that out, since there seem to be at least three versions still floating around. <Secondly, the referent of one of these sumti is the function, not the rule of the function, so it goes in fancu1, not fancu4. The fact that it specifies the function by rule is neither here nor there: I don't know how to write bau la lojban. the fancu4 for the factorial (or gamma) function, but I know there is such a rule, so "le ve fancu la faktorial." would be a way to designate the rule.> I am at a loss to figure out what a rule for a function is other than either a program or some other form of specifying how to compute the value in terms of more basic functions. But these turn out to be just other expressions of the same function. We can make that a text if need be, but I don't see the need for the complication in an already complex item. {le ve fancu be fo la faktorial). <Fancu4 is an *_expression_* (that is, a text or textoid). I don't know how to say "\x.x*2" as a text, primarily because I don't know how to MEX the dot.> Must fancu4 be MEX and in lambda form? and is MEX always text and never actual functions? |