Subject: Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 03:43:41

la pycyn cusku di'e

>Jeez, ya mean I've been teaching set theory wrong for 35 years -- including
>the adequacy proofs? Of course 1 as a function has no domain: look at it, 
>NO
>argument, ergo no domain.

Then it's a different function than the one xod and I had been
discussing. We were talking of one that mapped a series of
propositions to a constant value of 1.

Is a function the way you use the word something different than
a mapping?

><Of course we need names for functions. What we don't need is
>a place for the name in the predicate for 'function'!>
>
>But the function of {fancu} is precisely to introduce/define functions -- 
>not
>an easy thing to do otherwise -- at least wordy.

It would be interesting to see actual examples. I can think
of ways to introduce/define a function that do not involve
a place for the name. For example, if we want to define the
function F as the mapping from x to x+1 we can say:

sa'e roda zo'u fancu da le sumji be da bei li pa boi fy
def: For all x, x is mapped to x+1 by the function F.

I don't see the need to put {zo fy} in the x1 place.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com