Re: [lojban] fi'u was Re:lanzu usage

[jcowan@reutershealth.com]

Pierre Abbat scripsit:

> fi'u is (sqrt(5)+1)/2; fi'ufi'u is (sqrt(5)-1)/2. They are multiplicative 
> inverses. To six places, they are 1.618034 and 0.618034.

Fair enough, but you should document this on the Wiki.

> li fi'u vu'u fi'u fi'u du li pa

.i li te'o te'a pai pi'i ka'o du li ni'u pa

.i roxy. ro.y.bu rozy. nony. zo'u
	li xy. te'a ny. su'i .y.bu te'a ny. du li zy. te'a ny.
	.ije li ny. zmadu li re

This last raises the question of whether it's legitimate to use lerfu in
prenexes to represent bound variables.  Currently, the only bound variables
are da, de, di and variants thereof, but this really isn't enough for
stating proofs, and it's too remote from mathematical convention.  Do we
get into trouble if we allow uses like the above, rather than the
straight interpretation "For all of the in-mind-things-beginning-with-X"?

Note that I'm using conventional operator priorities, as licensed by the Red Book.

-- 
Do what you will,                       John Cowan
   this Life's a Fiction                jcowan@reutershealth.com
And is made up of                       http://www.reutershealth.com
   Contradiction.  --William Blake      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan