Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Sets and classes

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 06:03:30 +0000

la djorden cusku di'e

>Would
> lo ka'ejanaica'a selcmi be da
>satisfy as an empty set?

(I suppose you mean {jenai}.) I'm not sure whether a mathematician
would approve though. Mathematical things are supposed to just be.

>Anyway I'm not so sure about all this. It seems that it would be
>somewhat unfortunate if we can't say "le selcmi be noda", when
>there's a clear, useful interpretation of it (which I still don't
>think entails "na selcmi", only "na selcmi be da").

{le selcmi be noda} can be a good way to refer to the empty
set. Just as {le klama be noda} can be a good description for
one who stays at home, and {le patfu be noda} can be a good
description of someone who doesn't have children.

But that doesn't mean that {lo selcmi be noda} is a member of
{lo'i selcmi}, or that {lo klama be noda} is a member of
{lo'i klama}.

>Also (and back to the original thing), what about "lu'i no da" for
>empty set?

Yes, certainly. But saying {lu'i no da selcmi}, that is false,
unless you mean {lu'i no da selcmi zi'o}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com