From rob@twcny.rr.com Wed Mar 06 16:04:10 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 7 Mar 2002 00:04:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 98510 invoked from network); 6 Mar 2002 04:44:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Mar 2002 04:44:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout6.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.125) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Mar 2002 04:44:17 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout6.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id g264iGu05289 for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 23:44:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Tue, 5 Mar 2002 23:44:14 -0500 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16iTHj-0000bc-00 for ; Tue, 05 Mar 2002 23:44:15 -0500 Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 23:44:15 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies Message-ID: <20020306044415.GA2293@twcny.rr.com> References: <20020306031258.GA2007@twcny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.24i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2572649 X-Yahoo-Profile: squeekybobo 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