From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 11 16:20:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 11 Sep 2001 23:20:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 22734 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2001 23:13:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Sep 2001 23:13:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Sep 2001 23:13:52 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.22.1bb3adb1 (4552) for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:11:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <22.1bb3adb1.28cff427@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 19:11:35 EDT Subject: Set of answers encore To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_22.1bb3adb1.28cff427_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_22.1bb3adb1.28cff427_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lojbab, in the midst of his several-message-long "Write in lojban, not about it" screed (flame banked) did manage to clarify what is wrong with extension analysis vis a vis set of answers analysis: there are some answers which are not in the extension of the whatever minus Q-kau, as a function (the answers aren't the things that fit, but the whole expressions with them fitted in). As he noted, taking things makes no allowance for answers like (eliptically) "nothing," or {na'i}, which is always a possible answer. This also clarifies in what way {makau} is different from {ce'u}, for the latter does work in an extension-of sort of way. --part1_22.1bb3adb1.28cff427_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lojbab, in the midst of his several-message-long "Write in lojban, not about
it" screed (flame banked)  did manage to clarify what is wrong with extension
analysis vis a vis set of answers analysis: there are some answers which are
not in the extension of the whatever minus Q-kau, as a function (the answers
aren't the things that fit, but the whole expressions with them fitted in).  
As he noted, taking things makes no allowance for answers like (eliptically)
"nothing," or  {na'i}, which is always a possible answer.  This also
clarifies in what way {makau} is different from {ce'u}, for the latter does
work in an extension-of sort of way. --part1_22.1bb3adb1.28cff427_boundary--