Re: [lojban] A recursively-defined predicate for building chains (was: Lojban for great-great-grandfather)

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:

I can't say that I like using tenfa like this. It seems to me like a happy coincidence that we use exponentiation notation for both repeated multiplication and repeated function application in general.

It's more than a happy coincidence though, it's a natural generalization. They are both examples of algebraic structures in which exponentiation can be defined: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponentiation#Generalizations

I also don't like allowing both numbers and predicates in the tenfa, if we were to try generalizing it without adding a place for the predicate (in which case we pretty much wind up with my predicate, but with the possibility of non-natural exponents, which doesn't make a lot of sense outside of exponentiation.)

tenfa1 has to be of the same type as tenfa2. You need there to be a binary operation defined on objects of this type that returns another object of the same type.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.