From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Dec 21 16:57:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 22 Dec 2002 00:57:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 62270 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2002 00:57:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Dec 2002 00:57:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.60) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Dec 2002 00:57:52 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 16:57:52 -0800 Received: from 200.69.6.37 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 00:57:52 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lemma and conjecture Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 00:57:52 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2002 00:57:52.0788 (UTC) FILETIME=[27FB2540:01C2A955] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.37] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pier cusku di'e > > I'm not sure what the status of {ke'unsazri} or {ke'upsazri} is. > >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. Assume that the conjecture is false. Then we must have two lerpoi: S1=CVVRC... and S2=CVVKC... where R is one of r,n,l and K is some consonant other than R and the two lerpoi have the same pattern of vowels, consonants and clusters, and such that S1 is a lujvo and S2 is not a valid word. (In no other position could a difference in consonants have an effect on the validity of the lerpoi as a brivla.) The initial CVV can't fall off from S2 because KC must be an impermissible initial, to match the form of S1. It is clearly not a possible slinku'i either. It is a valid brivla as far as permissible clusters because S1 is one, and it is not a lujvo because it would have to break as CVV-KC... but the second part can't be a lujvo. So it is a valid fu'ivla. So our assumption is wrong and the conjecture must be true. Or am I missing something? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 3 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail&xAPID=42&PS=47575&PI=7324&DI=7474&SU= http://www.hotmail.msn.com/cgi-bin/getmsg&HL=1216hotmailtaglines_smartspamprotection_3mf