From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Oct 03 16:40:41 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 3 Oct 2001 23:38:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 96026 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 23:38:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 3 Oct 2001 23:38:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.228) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 23:40:41 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:40:41 -0700 Received: from 200.69.11.248 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 23:40:40 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.69.11.248] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 23:40:40 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2001 23:40:41.0066 (UTC) FILETIME=[CFD974A0:01C14C64] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e >Now we are getting down to what is perhaps merely >an unclarity, what you seem to say is that {le du'u makau mamta la bil} is >a >set of propositions, in each of which (which suggests there is only one) >{makau} is assigned Bill's actual mother. I might agree, if you allow me to make two changes: {le'i du'u makau mamta la bil} is the set, and {le du'u ...} is "each member of the set...". I think you often talk of "the set" when you mean "each of the members of the set", which can be confusing. This is just the standard {le'i broda}/{le broda} distinction. The second thing is that it doesn't have to be the actual mother. (The proposition might even be, in an extreme case, {le du'u noda mamta la bil}.) The proposition or propositions need not be true. >Similarly, {le du'u makau mamta >ce'u} is a function that assigns to each replacement of {ce'u} a (set of) >proposition(s) with makau replaced by the actual mother of the replacement >for {ce'u}. With the changes above, yes. (Not necessarily the actual mother, and not the set but each of the members of the set of propositions.) >You said >"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}." > >Now, if you did not mean that to mean what I have taken it to mean, then >you >have come over to some version -- I don't yet quite know which -- of >set-of-answers theory and welcome aboard. Yes, I have always been on the set-of-answers camp, though I've never been able to give And a suitable formalization. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp