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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 09:32:38 EST

In a message dated 2/27/2002 5:40:47 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> > > Is it: {ca'e li pa du li no y'ybu}? Something
> > > else?
> >
> >It certainly would not be your suggestions, since that makes no sense,
> 
> :)
> 
> >being about a couple of numbers (and so not definable) and a letter (not
> >obviously related to anything at all).
> 
> There is no letter. {li no y'ybu} is just one number.
> I admit I've no idea what {0'} is supposed to be.
> 

Is there a link to indicate that {li no y'ybu} is a single number rather than 
a number and a letter? How would the latter run, then? Oops, {li no lo'o 
y'ybu}

<pabu is a letter (or 'letteral'), do you mean that?
Or do you mean zo pa? The letteral pabu is not immediately
related to the number pa. And nobu ce'o y'ybu is an
ordered set of two letterals>

{pabu} presumably refers to the numeral "1" unless this whole system is 
totally verkakt. And {nobu ce'o y'ybu} should refer to the sequence "0"+"'", 
not a set at all.
"0'" means "the successor of 0"

<>This is not obvious, it depends upon what the purpose of the sentence is.
>Cherlin wants it to be a definition, and thus it is exactly text that is
>wanted, needed, possible.

But the text is not the part being defined! It's being used
to define something else (not a text), so not what you
understand as a definition.>

The text is the part being defined, that is how definitions work in 
mathematics: one bit of text can be replaced by another without loss or gain 
(except in convenience). It happens in Cherlin's example that he does not 
provide the abbreviation, only a name for what it names, and so what he 
offers is not really a definition at all, but a theorem about the objects 
involved. I failed to point out the peculiar result of calling it a 
definition but you should be able to work them out yourself, rather than 
wandering off on an unrelated (and unrelatable) point.