From pycyn@aol.com Tue Feb 19 08:10:16 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_2); 19 Feb 2002 16:10:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 13847 invoked from network); 19 Feb 2002 16:10:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Feb 2002 16:10:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Feb 2002 16:10:15 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.97.23583409 (4509) for ; Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:15:02 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <97.23583409.29a3b7e5@aol.com> Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:15:01 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_97.23583409.29a3b7e5_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_97.23583409.29a3b7e5_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/18/2002 8:30:17 PM Central Standard Time, cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes: > > 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? > > I have two problems here: first of all, a 2-relation should be > "le ka ce'u ... ce'u", in this case "le ka ce'u pilji ce'u li re". > In English: the mapping between numbers and their doubles. > I agree that "du'u" will work as an alternative to "ka" here, > since we have explicit ce'us (the difference being that "du'u" > defaults to 0 ce'us, and ka to 1). But I see no reason to use makau {makau} is used to distinguish the value -- the output-- from the argument (input). What you have written is a propositional function, whose output is either a claim or a truth value for each pair of values submitted. I see we have to go throuhg the whole {ka}-{du'u} bit again to sort that out, since there seem to be at least three versions still floating around. I am at a loss to figure out what a rule for a function is other than either a program or some other form of specifying how to compute the value in terms of more basic functions. But these turn out to be just other expressions of the same function. We can make that a text if need be, but I don't see the need for the complication in an already complex item. {le ve fancu be fo la faktorial). Must fancu4 be MEX and in lambda form? and is MEX always text and never actual functions? --part1_97.23583409.29a3b7e5_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/18/2002 8:30:17 PM Central Standard Time, cowan@mercury.ccil.org writes:


> 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?

I have two problems here:  first of all, a 2-relation should be
"le ka ce'u ... ce'u", in this case "le ka ce'u pilji ce'u li re".
In English: the mapping between numbers and their doubles.
I agree that "du'u" will work as an alternative to "ka" here,
since we have explicit ce'us (the difference being that "du'u"
defaults to 0 ce'us, and ka to 1).  But I see no reason to use makau


{makau} is used to distinguish the value -- the output-- from the argument (input).  What you have written is a propositional function, whose output is either a claim or a truth value for each pair of values submitted.  I see we have to go throuhg the whole {ka}-{du'u} bit again to sort that out, since there seem to be at least three versions still floating around.

<Secondly, the referent of one of these sumti is the function, not
the rule of the function, so it goes in fancu1, not fancu4.  The
fact that it specifies the function by rule is neither here nor
there:  I don't know how to write bau la lojban. the fancu4 for the factorial
(or gamma) function, but I know there is such a rule, so
"le ve fancu la faktorial." would be a way to designate the rule.>

I am at a loss to figure out what a rule for a function is other than either a program or some other form of specifying how to compute the value in terms of more basic functions.  But these turn out to be just other expressions of the same function.  We can make that a text if need be, but I don't see the need for the complication in an already complex item.  {le ve fancu be fo la faktorial).

<Fancu4 is an *expression* (that is, a text or textoid).
I don't know how to say "\x.x*2" as a text, primarily because
I don't know how to MEX the dot.>

Must fancu4 be MEX and in lambda form? and is MEX always text and never actual functions?

 --part1_97.23583409.29a3b7e5_boundary--