From pycyn@aol.com Mon Feb 18 17:54:07 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 19 Feb 2002 01:54:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 91405 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2002 01:32:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Feb 2002 01:32:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 2002 01:32:49 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.22.23e3f299 (4541) for ; Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:32:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <22.23e3f299.29a30535@aol.com> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 20:32:37 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_22.23e3f299.29a30535_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_22.23e3f299.29a30535_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/18/2002 5:56:55 PM Central Standard Time, cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes: > pycyn@aol.com scripsit: > > > Will {li f(x)= x*2} be well-formed? Or, perhaps, how is it to be parsed? > > Using \x.x*2 avoids the problem of the pseudo-equation. > Only if we can agree how to say "\x.x*2" You seem not to like {le du'u makau pilji ce'u li re} What is your choice? --part1_22.23e3f299.29a30535_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/18/2002 5:56:55 PM Central Standard Time, cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes:


pycyn@aol.com scripsit:

> Will {li f(x)= x*2} be well-formed? Or, perhaps, how is it to be parsed?

Using \x.x*2 avoids the problem of the pseudo-equation.


Only if we can agree how to say "\x.x*2"  You seem not to like {le du'u makau pilji ce'u li re}  What is your choice? --part1_22.23e3f299.29a30535_boundary--