From pycyn@aol.com Thu Oct 04 14:32:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 4 Oct 2001 21:32:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 46518 invoked from network); 4 Oct 2001 21:32:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Oct 2001 21:32:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d09.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.41) by mta1 with SMTP; 4 Oct 2001 21:32:07 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.91.115382fe (3842) for ; Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:32:03 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <91.115382fe.28ee2f52@aol.com> Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 17:32:02 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_91.115382fe.28ee2f52_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_91.115382fe.28ee2f52_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/4/2001 10:33:35 AM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org writes: > 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 > > I'm not sure. It would (I suppose -- though I can imagine all kinds of weaseling going on on even this) make it clear that there is a function being talked about. The problem ten is the temptation to see it as a mathematical function, giving rise to mathemtatical entities as values. One of the virtues elsewhere has been that the form marked the sort of thing that came out as values {du'u} and propositions, {ni} and qunatities, and so on. --part1_91.115382fe.28ee2f52_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/4/2001 10:33:35 AM Central Daylight Time, lojbab@lojban.org writes:


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


I'm not sure.  It would (I suppose -- though I can imagine all kinds of weaseling going on on even this) make it clear that there is a function being talked about.  The problem ten is the temptation to see it as a mathematical function, giving rise to mathemtatical entities as values.  One of the virtues elsewhere has been that the form marked the sort of thing that came out as values {du'u} and propositions, {ni} and qunatities, and so on.   --part1_91.115382fe.28ee2f52_boundary--