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

From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 23:44:15 -0500

On Tue, Mar 05, 2002 at 11:20:14PM -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> But if you refer to the context of the discussion, isn't it true that one
> person (pc?) said that fancu1 is a name of a function, and Cherlin
> contradicted him by saying it's the function itself and not the name, and
> also not the formula that specifies it (because that's fancu4)? If this
> isn't the case, then perhaps I misunderstood the discussion and did say
> something absurd.

I think Edward was simply the only person to stop and consider that fancu
might not be so anomalous after all. Other people were assuming that
there could not be any difference between a function (as a general
concept) and its formula. As a way of forcing there to be a distinction,
someone suggested that x1 would be the function's name.

Considering a function to be a mathematical object with a domain, range,
and formula causes there to be no problem.

All this means is that you might have to be careful which you mean. {le
dugri befi li te'o} is {lo fancu}; {me'o xy de'o te'o} is {lo velfancu},
and one that Dr. Seuss would have liked if he were a Lojban-speaking
mathematician. :)

-- 
la rab.spir
noi fancu le sarji zo gumri