From pycyn@aol.com Sat Sep 08 14:32:57 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 8 Sep 2001 21:32:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 68731 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2001 21:32:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Sep 2001 21:32:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Sep 2001 21:32:56 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.c.1aceaedd (17379) for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 17:32:41 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 17:32:41 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_c.1aceaedd.28cbe879_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_c.1aceaedd.28cbe879_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/8/2001 3:45:13 PM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > But given that ce'u in free ka is relatively clearly defined, and that > ka/ce'u are only defined as free, the bound ka usage being something > of a groping in the dark, bound ka should not have first claim on > ce'u, however much more frequently needed bound ka is than free ka. > So instead you should be looking for an alternative to ce'u -- an > experimental cmavo, if necessary. > Bound ka is just free ka where we are uninterested in the whole range of value, but focused on a few cases. Since we are only comparing W and Jeb with respect to some function, we only care about what the value of the function is for them as arguments. But the whole function is involved (though, of course, we could do with a fucntion whose range is restricted to W and Jeb, but that would take more time than its worth, since it would ahve to agree with the big function for these value anyhow). so {ka ... ce'u} is correct and adequate for teh purpose, even though we ignore most of its content. --part1_c.1aceaedd.28cbe879_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/8/2001 3:45:13 PM Central Daylight Time,
a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:


But given that ce'u in free ka is relatively clearly defined, and that
ka/ce'u are only defined as free, the bound ka usage being something
of a groping in the dark, bound ka should not have first claim on
ce'u, however much more frequently needed bound ka is than free ka.
So instead you should be looking for an alternative to ce'u -- an
experimental cmavo, if necessary.


Bound ka is just free ka where we are uninterested in the whole range of
value, but focused on a few cases.  Since we are only comparing W and Jeb
with respect to some function, we only care about what the value of the
function is for them as arguments.  But the whole function is involved
(though, of course, we could do with a fucntion whose range is restricted to
W and Jeb, but that would take more time than its worth, since it would ahve
to agree with the big function for these value anyhow).  so {ka ... ce'u} is
correct and adequate for teh purpose, even though we ignore most of its
content.
--part1_c.1aceaedd.28cbe879_boundary--