Subject: Re: [lojban] Set stuff

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 19:45:54 +0000

la djorden cusku di'e

>If I have "le
>selcmi", the sumti already refers to a set (individually), right?

Yes, "each of the sets I have in mind".

>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?).

Right. {le'i selcmi} is the set of the sets (at least one) that
I have in mind.

>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

Interesting. {le'i broda poi ke'a brode} should be the
set of brodas that are brode, while {le'i broda ku poi
ke'a brode} should be the set of brodas which (set) is
a brode. So what you have does do what you want.

>or even the traji concise:
> lo'i selcmi be na'ebo ri

There's the problem with {ri} that you mention below,
but also even if {ri} did refer to the set, that would be
the set of sets that are not its members. Much worse
than the original, as every single set is now
problematic as to whether it is a member or not.

>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?

{ke'a} only works within a NOI. Maybe {lo'i ro na cmima be vo'a}.
You'd have to read Nick's paper to see whether this works or not...

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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