Subject: Set stuff

From: Jordan DeLong <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 11:45:29 -0500

In
le selcmi be ro selcmi poi ke'a na cmima ke'a
as a translation of "The set of all sets which aren't members of
themselves", I ran into a question about set gadri. If I have "le
selcmi", the sumti already refers to a set (individually), right?
Is it neccesary to use "le'i selcmi"? Or would "le'i selcmi"
actually mean something else? (ba'a: le'i selcmi == piro le'i su'o
selcmi == the whole of the set of some sets?).

Which leads me to my next question. If the above is correct, is it
better to say something more like:
le'i ro selcmi poi ke'a na cmima ke'a
or even the traji concise:
lo'i selcmi be na'ebo ri

I'm liking the last one at this point (but not entirely sure if
it's correct use of set operators). Also; I'm not sure if that ri
works properly; I know ri looks back to the first "complete" sumti,
so perhaps that wouldn't work there... Can ya use ke'a in a be? If
so then perhaps
lo'i selcmi be na'ebo ke'a
would fix the ri problem... Anyone have a better suggestion for the
translation?

-- 
Jordan DeLong
[email-masked]