Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 11:26:38 -0400

At 05:28 PM 10/3/01 +0100, And Rosta wrote:
>#> Why would its values be more representative of a function than the
>#> relationship that gives rise to it?
>#
>#"Is mother of," {le ka/du'u ce'u mamta ce'u}, is a relation and, indeed, a
>#function, as a set of ordered pairs --though the order is reversed here, so
>#{le du'u ce'u se mamta ce'u} . There are many functions for which it is
>#somewhat unnatural to think of the corresponding relation (sum, product, and
>#the like, for example) and, indeed, the relations can usually be expressed
>#only by an equation between the function with an argument and its value for
>#that argument (though one way of doing Logic does take this notion as basic,
>#to simplify some kinds of metatheoretical proofs).
>
>I think it would be very helpful to use Sum rather than Mamta as an example.

Not that I've come close to following this discussion, but would it be 
easier to talk about mamta as a function if, like sumji -> su'i, you were 
to convert mamta to an operator and use Mex

na'u mamta ["be ce'u" or "be fa ce'u", whichever is appropriate to mark the 
value apart from the arguments]

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org