From phma@webjockey.net Sat Dec 21 18:28:05 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 22 Dec 2002 02:28:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 19298 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2002 02:28:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Dec 2002 02:28:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Dec 2002 02:28:04 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 6E0EC3C5D6; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:28:02 -0500 (EST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Lemma and conjecture Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 21:27:47 -0500 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: In-Reply-To: X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <0212212127470M.17068@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 On Saturday 21 December 2002 19:57, Jorge Llambias wrote: > 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? You still have to prove that, if S1 is a lujvo and S2 a fu'ivla, there are no S3 related to S1 and S4 related in the same way to S2 such that one is valid and the other is invalid. phma