From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Dec 21 19:01:17 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 22 Dec 2002 03:01:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 32115 invoked from network); 22 Dec 2002 03:01:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Dec 2002 03:01:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.233) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Dec 2002 03:01:17 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 19:01:17 -0800 Received: from 200.69.6.18 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 22 Dec 2002 03:01:17 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lemma and conjecture Date: Sun, 22 Dec 2002 03:01:17 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Dec 2002 03:01:17.0518 (UTC) FILETIME=[658B46E0:01C2A966] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.18] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pier cusku di'e >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. I don't undesrstand what you mean by S3 being related to S1. Maybe I misunderstood the conjecture. What I understood is that if you have two lerpoi that have the same pattern of vowels, consonants and clusters, then either the two are valid brivla or the two are invalid brivla. Isn't that the conjecture? That is what I showed to be true. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963