From pycyn@aol.com Thu Feb 28 10:15:56 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 28 Feb 2002 18:15:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 52278 invoked from network); 28 Feb 2002 18:15:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Feb 2002 18:15:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Feb 2002 18:15:54 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.152.9a4c464 (3952) for ; Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:15:44 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <152.9a4c464.29afcdd0@aol.com> Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 13:15:44 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_152.9a4c464.29afcdd0_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_152.9a4c464.29afcdd0_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/28/2002 9:35:30 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > Presumably {pabu} refers to the numeral "1" as much as {abu} > refers to the letter "A". But {abu} is used as a pronoun, so > why would {pabu} be any different? > I assume that {abu} refers to "a" and that its use as a pronoun is dependent upon that and a convention, not that it is directly a pronoun. {pabu} referring to "1" seemed a natural generalization, though pi,er now tells us that the official way is to use a mess o' MEX, {me'o pa}. The list explanation for {me'o} is more opaque than usual, could be read that way, I guess. It could also be read as not applying on the ground that {pa} is not an unevaluated mathematical expression. And what does {pabu} mean, then (if it is legal, as it should be)? <>And {nobu ce'o y'ybu} should refer to the sequence "0"+"'", >not a set at all. I would say that concatenation is a type of {joi}, not of {ce}. Maybe {ce'o} is the ordered version of either {joi} or {ce}, depending on context?> {jo'i} I suppose, since string are not at all like masses -- less than they are like sets, indeed -- but {jo'i} seems to be limited to mathematical critters, not symbols, and an array is more complex tha needed here (though that a sequence is a 1-array makes a kind of sense). And what does {ce'o} have to do with {ce} other than that they begin the same? So do {ce'a}, {cei}, {ce'i} and {ce'u} none of which connect well with sets, though {ce'e} does after a fashion. Well, in arithmetic it is primitive, so can't be defined. But {ny ce'o y'ybu} seems about right. Specifying what it means would be harder. --part1_152.9a4c464.29afcdd0_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2/28/2002 9:35:30 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


Presumably {pabu} refers to the numeral "1" as much as {abu}
refers to the letter "A". But {abu} is used as a pronoun, so
why would {pabu} be any different?


I assume that {abu} refers to "a" and that its use as a pronoun is dependent upon that and a convention, not that it is directly a pronoun.  {pabu} referring to "1" seemed a natural generalization, though pi,er now tells us that the official way is to use a mess o' MEX, {me'o pa}.  The list explanation for {me'o} is more opaque than usual, could be read that way, I guess.  It could also be read as not applying on the ground that {pa} is not an unevaluated mathematical expression.  And what does {pabu} mean, then (if it is legal, as it should be)?

<>And {nobu ce'o y'ybu} should refer to the sequence "0"+"'",
>not a set at all.

I would say that concatenation is a type of {joi}, not of {ce}.
Maybe {ce'o} is the ordered version of either {joi} or {ce},
depending on context?>
{jo'i} I suppose, since string are not at all like masses -- less than they are like sets, indeed -- but {jo'i} seems to be limited to mathematical critters, not symbols, and an array is more complex tha needed here (though that a sequence is a 1-array makes a kind of sense).  And what does {ce'o} have to do with {ce} other than that they begin the same? So do {ce'a}, {cei}, {ce'i} and {ce'u} none of which connect well with sets, though {ce'e} does after a fashion.

<I won't even ask how to define {n'} in general in Lojban...>

Well, in arithmetic it is primitive, so can't be defined.  But {ny ce'o y'ybu} seems about right.  Specifying what it means would be harder.




 --part1_152.9a4c464.29afcdd0_boundary--