From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Jan 28 12:20:39 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 28 Jan 2003 20:20:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 53559 invoked from network); 28 Jan 2003 20:20:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Jan 2003 20:20:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Jan 2003 20:20:38 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18dcDm-0000Wi-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:20:38 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18dcDc-0000WL-00; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:20:29 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:20:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18dcDW-0000W8-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:20:22 -0800 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:20:22 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: loi preti be fi lo nincli zo'u tu'e Message-ID: <20030128202021.GG28812@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20030127235218.GS17154@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-archive-position: 3934 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 04:48:14PM +0000, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > Any idea, for example, how best to translate ('scuse amateur > > > > ASCII graphics): > > > > > > > > | | > > > > | | A > > > > \_/ i > > > > i in I > > > > > > > > ("The union over I of A sub i"), which is the same as > > > > > > > > | | > > > > | | {A : i in I} > > > > \_/ i > > > > > > > > where that big union is my sorselcmipi'i (or sorkuzselcmi)? Do > > > > we need yet another lujvo, or is there a nice translation of > > > > that set? I don't think {lu'i .abu boi xi .ibu poi .ibu cmima > > > > tau .ibu} really works. > > > > > > The set of A_i where i is a member of I. Looks fine to me. > > > > > > Really? Cool. I'm still not sure I like it, though, if only > > > because I'm not completely sure how quantification with letterals > > > (and other non-DA pro-sumti) really works. And also what > > > poi-clauses without a ke'a mean. > > > > Same as the same poi clause with ke'a as the first entry. > > > > > Are they really just the equivalent of the English "such that", or > > > the mathematical "s.t."/":"/"|"? > > > > When attached to da and friends, yes. > > > > > Don't suppose you could point me towards something which explains > > > it all? > > > > It's in the red book somewhere. 8) > > > > Chapter 16, S4. > > > > No, that's not what I meant. I get all that stuff. Sorry, I was far > from clear (damned rarbau thinking). What I meant was that in {lu'i > .abu boi xi .ibu poi .ibu cmima tau .ibu}, the poi phrase isn't (I > think) binding to the .ibu, which is just a lerfu string as part of > the subscript, and if I understand my EBNF right NOI can only bind to > a sumti. The entire {.abu boi xi .ibu} is acting as a sumti here, so > the poi relates to that. And the poi phrase gives a condition on .ibu, > and hence on a *part of the description* of ke'a, rather than ke'a > itself. Ick. You're absolutely right. > So what I'm asking is - is this valid? Does it have the obvious > meaning? If we took the .ibu out of the poi, no, but as is, yes. A poi clause, as I understand it, need not have a ke'a; it can refer to what it is attached to explicitely. Probably better, though, is lu'i .abu boi xi .ibu zo'u .ibu cmima be tau .ibu But there really should be a way to attach some kind of clause to a subscripted letteral, or math is going to be really hard. Another way, and this I actually don't mind much: lu'i .abu boi xi .ibu to .ibu cmima be tau .ibu toi That seems workable in practice. > Similarly, is {lo broda be da ku poi da brode} legit? As far as I know, but you may want to ask jboske. > Would anything change if ko'a or .ibu replaced da? How about if ko'a > had been used before, and still had scope, or if a recent sumti had a > description beginning with an .ibu? Dunno. I think that's a usage issue. > Also, and relatedly, is {ro boi .ibu poi kacna'u zo'u .ibu broda} > quantifying over .ibu, or is the prenex just giving a subject > restricting whatever .ibu already refers to to natural numbers? I'm inclined to say the former. > To keep clear of these difficulties, I've been using constructs like > {ro da poi kacna'u zi'e goi .ibu zo'u .ibu broda}, which I think works > but is a bit ugly+wordy. Yeah. Seems unnecessary. > > > I'll mail my crypto prof about his Elliptic Curves book, if > > > anyone's interested in reading a book on elliptic curve cyphers. > > > 8) > > > > > > In lojban? Of course! > > > > Well, would anyone else be interested I wonder. 8) > > Ahem. Lojbanists? I think that was your cue... We should probably extract this to a seperate thread; don't think anyone's reading anymore. 8) -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi