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

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 02:22:18

la rab cusku di'e

>All this means is that you might have to be careful which you mean. {le
>dugri befi li te'o} is {lo fancu};

I would have said it is {lo namcu}:

ro da poi nonmau namcu ku'o de poi namcu zo'u da de dugri li te'o

Unless you're taking advantage of the non-veridicality of {le}.
{ro dugri cu namcu gi'enai fancu}. The function might be, for
example, {le du'u makau dugri ce'u li te'o}.

>{me'o xy de'o te'o} is {lo velfancu},

That's more or less what John Cowan said, except he would want
some way to mark {xy} as a lambda variable. Suppose xy is already
assigned the value te'o, how do you tell what is the variable in
{me'o ybu de'o xy}. How do you tell constants appart from
variables? The normal function of pronouns is as constants.
Do we use the usual convention in mathematics that x, y, z
are variables?

Edward's proposal was somewhat more complex: {li ma'o te'o te'a xy}
for e^x, which is not quite grammatical as it is, I think. But it
still doesn't explain how 'x' enters into it.

>and one that Dr. Seuss would have liked if he were a Lojban-speaking
>mathematician. :)

What would he say about {li ma'o te'o te'a xy te'u tu'o}?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com