Re: [lojban] Re: Sets and classes

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

la djorden cusku di'e

> Would
>   lo ka'ejanaica'a selcmi be da
> satisfy as an empty set?

(I suppose you mean {jenai}.) I'm not sure whether a mathematician
would approve though. Mathematical things are supposed to just be.

> Anyway I'm not so sure about all this.  It seems that it would be
> somewhat unfortunate if we can't say "le selcmi be noda", when
> there's a clear, useful interpretation of it (which I still don't
> think entails "na selcmi", only "na selcmi be da").

{le selcmi be noda} can be a good way to refer to the empty
set. Just as {le klama be noda} can be a good description for
one who stays at home, and {le patfu be noda} can be a good
description of someone who doesn't have children.

But that doesn't mean that {lo selcmi be noda} is a member of
{lo'i selcmi}, or that {lo klama be noda} is a member of
{lo'i klama}.

> Also (and back to the original thing), what about "lu'i no da" for
> empty set?

Yes, certainly. But saying {lu'i no da selcmi}, that is false,
unless you mean {lu'i no da selcmi zi'o}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



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