Subject: Re: [lojban] Lemma and conjecture

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 05:38:08 -0500

At 08:08 PM 12/20/02 -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
>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.

There are more rules limiting fu'ivla than that. Indeed for Type IV 
fu'ivla, there are (probably) more rules limiting them than have been 
identified.

lojbab

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org