From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Oct 02 16:23:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 2 Oct 2001 23:23:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 5596 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2001 23:23:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 2 Oct 2001 23:23:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.60) by mta1 with SMTP; 2 Oct 2001 23:23:51 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 16:23:51 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.45 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:23:51 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.45] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 23:23:51 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Oct 2001 23:23:51.0714 (UTC) FILETIME=[4BD0D020:01C14B99] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >Who their mothers are is a function from animals to females. > But I suppose pc would disapprove> > >Indeed he would: fill in the places and what do you get: {le du'u la >elizabef >mamta la djan}, a proposition. So {la du'u makau mamta ce'u} is a function >from a pair of things, the first female, the second any animal, to a >proposition. Not what is wanted. And I don't see how anything that starts >out {le du'u} is going to end up anywhere else. Your assumption is that to refer to a function we must use something that looks like one of its values. Is there a justification for that? In my view {makau} stands for the value that the relationship gives when the ce'u place is filled. {makau} will take a value from x3 for each value taken from x2 and placed in {ce'u}. Why would its values be more representative of a function than the relationship that gives rise to it? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp