From pycyn@aol.com Wed Sep 18 19:15:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 19 Sep 2002 02:15:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 65558 invoked from network); 19 Sep 2002 02:15:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Sep 2002 02:15:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m03.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.6) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Sep 2002 02:15:26 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.10.) id r.9b.2d7f8a1b (2612) for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:15:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <9b.2d7f8a1b.2aba8d3c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 22:15:24 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_9b.2d7f8a1b.2aba8d3c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_9b.2d7f8a1b.2aba8d3c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/18/2002 3:22:52 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: << > >tu'o du'u ce'u kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u brode kei du tu'o ce'u broda da poi > > >ckaji tu'o du'u ce'u brode > > (I think you're missing a {kei}, or just use {cu du} to make > it simpler.) But that is not the {kairbroda} I was using! > >> (I do indeed need another {kei} or a {cu} Gee, I thought I was just symbolizing what you said in English. What did I translate wrong -- or you mistate in English. << ><< >And {kairbroda} is an ordinary jvajvo from {ckaji broda}, with >place structure b1 (b2=c1) c2 b3 b4 b5 ... > >> >An ordinary jvajvo with an extraordinary semantics: (b2=c1) is dropped (not >unusual) but plays an active role -- and is quantified to boot. Only in your version, not in mine. In my version (b2=c1) plays no active role and the lujvo has ordinary semantics. (It has no problems with negations for example, as I suspect yours might.) >> As Oz the Great and Powerful said (in the movie at least) "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" But it is what makes the whole thing run. Well, I'm not too sure what negation might do to your {lo'e}, it works about te way I would expect in my analysis. I skip over the {sisku} stuff, since I wouldn't hang anything on how {sisku}. The change was needed, but the way chosen was not the ideal one; other changes went better. I note that your examples with {pavyseljirna} for {santo}, are also simple but generally wrong. << >Some minor proofs, using real lambdas this time -- the {ce'u}s are a pain.. >kairbroda is \x \z(Ey(x broda y & y ckaji z) Not my {kairbroda}! I must have: broda is \x \y(x kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u = y) which doesn't work with your {kairbroda}. >> Actually, it does: put my {kairbroda} into your {broda} or your {broda} into my Kairbroda} and simplify. << >a broda loe' brode = [...] = a broda lo brode. My definition of {lo'e} given in terms of my {kairbroda} does not work with your definition of {kairbroda}, of course. That's not surprising. >> Since they are the same when all is said and done, it works fine and {lo'e broda} (yours) = {lo broda} (Lojban's). --part1_9b.2d7f8a1b.2aba8d3c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/18/2002 3:22:52 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<<
>tu'o du'u ce'u kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u brode kei du tu'o ce'u broda da poi
>ckaji tu'o du'u ce'u brode

(I think you're missing a {kei}, or just use {cu du} to make
it simpler.) But that is not the {kairbroda} I was using!
>
>
(I do indeed need another {kei} or a {cu}
Gee, I thought I was just symbolizing what you said in  English.  What did I translate wrong -- or you mistate in English.

<<
><<
>And {kairbroda} is an ordinary jvajvo from {ckaji broda}, with
>place structure b1 (b2=c1) c2 b3 b4 b5 ...
> >>
>An ordinary jvajvo with an extraordinary semantics: (b2=c1) is dropped (not
>unusual) but plays an active role -- and is quantified to boot.

Only in your version, not in mine. In my version (b2=c1) plays
no active role and the lujvo has ordinary semantics. (It has no
problems with negations for example, as I suspect yours might.)
>>
As Oz the Great and Powerful said (in the movie at least) "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"  But it is what makes the whole thing run.
Well, I'm not too sure what negation might do to your {lo'e}, it works about te way I would expect in my analysis.

I skip over the {sisku} stuff, since I wouldn't hang anything on how {sisku}.  The change was needed, but the way chosen was not the ideal one; other changes went better.  I note that your examples with {pavyseljirna} for {santo}, are also simple but generally wrong.

<<
>Some minor proofs, using real lambdas this time -- the {ce'u}s are a pain..
>kairbroda is \x \z(Ey(x broda y & y ckaji z)

Not my {kairbroda}! I must have:

broda is \x \y(x kairbroda tu'o du'u ce'u = y)

which doesn't work with your {kairbroda}.
>>
Actually, it does: put my {kairbroda} into your {broda} or your {broda} into my Kairbroda} and simplify.

<<
>a broda loe' brode = [...] = a broda lo brode.

My definition of {lo'e} given in terms of my {kairbroda} does
not work with your definition of {kairbroda}, of course. That's
not surprising.
>>
Since they are the same when all is said and done, it works fine and {lo'e broda} (yours) = {lo broda} (Lojban's). --part1_9b.2d7f8a1b.2aba8d3c_boundary--