From phma@webjockey.net Fri Dec 20 17:08:27 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 21 Dec 2002 01:08:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 38696 invoked from network); 21 Dec 2002 01:08:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 21 Dec 2002 01:08:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 21 Dec 2002 01:08:27 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 3057C3C477; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:08:26 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Lemma and conjecture Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 20:08:21 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0212202008210F.17068@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 On Thursday 19 December 2002 18:17, Jorge Llambias wrote: > (Is the conjecture at all related to the lemma?) Only in that both are part of proving the valfendi algorithm. > I'm not sure what the status of {ke'unsazri} or {ke'upsazri} is. > Are they valid fu'ivla, because they can't be lujvo, or are they > not valid fu'ivla, because there are possible lujvo of the form > CVVC/CVCCV? If they are valid fu'ivla, then I can't see how the > conjecture could possibly be false. If they are not valid fu'ivla, > then obviously the conjecture is false. AFAIK they are valid fu'ivla, because they can't be lujvo. I don't see how it can be false either, but it has to be proved, and that seems to be a nadnabmi. phma