From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Sep 26 18:37:48 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 27 Sep 2001 01:36:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 54210 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 01:36:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 27 Sep 2001 01:36:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.90) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 01:37:47 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:37:47 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.4 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 01:37:47 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.4] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: more about ce'u and functions Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 01:37:47 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 27 Sep 2001 01:37:47.0851 (UTC) FILETIME=[033F81B0:01C146F5] From: "Jorge Llambias" Let's consider two predicates, broda and brode, with the same extensions but different intensions, i.e. two different predicates such that {roda rode zo'u go da de broda gi da de brode}. Now hopefully we will all agree that {le du'u ko'a broda ko'e} and {le du'u ko'a brode ko'e} are two different propositions (which happen to have the same truth value), with different meaning. On the other hand, {le broda be ko'e} and {le brode be ko'e} both have the same referent (namely ko'a, if {ko'a broda ko'e}). Now then, {le du'u makau broda ce'u} and {le du'u makau brode ce'u} are different functions into propositions: they each give a different proposition for any given value of ce'u. What about {le broda be ce'u} and {le brode be ce'u}, assuming this is a valid way of using {ce'u} (I don't think it is, but for the sake of argument)? Both give the same values for any given value of ce'u. Do the two expressions refer to the same function, the way that both {le broda} and {le brode} refer to the same object? If they both refer to the same function, then this is clearly not what we normally want as a te frica, since what we want there is the intension, not the extension. If they refer to different functions, this is a further violation of the usual meaning of {le}, which is normally extensional. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp