From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon May 22 17:53:37 2000 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15370 invoked from network); 23 May 2000 00:53:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 23 May 2000 00:53:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.153) by mta1 with SMTP; 23 May 2000 00:53:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 27102 invoked by uid 0); 23 May 2000 00:53:37 -0000 Message-ID: <20000523005337.27101.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.42.154.41 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Mon, 22 May 2000 17:53:37 PDT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.154.41] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] More on lojban programatic semantics: Strong typing and inferencing of types Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 17:53:37 PDT Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed From: "Jorge Llambias" > > The converse is also true, of course. Any mekso can be converted > > into an ordinary grammatical construct, usually making > > much more clear what you're talking about. > >Ehm. Perhaps in lojban, and perhaps to a non-mathematician, but that >seems like quite a broad assertion.... Yes, by "mekso" I only meant the Lojban mekso system. My contention is that it doesn't facilitate anything. I don't mean to say that mathematical formulas are not useful, only that reading them using Lojban mekso is just as complicated, or more, than reading them using standard Lojban or standard English. >In terms of programming, I'd say both forms would have applications. >Some problems are mathematical in formulation, some are verbal, some are >visual. My opinion is that Lojban mekso will not be of much help with the mathematical formulations. I could be wrong, of course. In part I'm making these categorical assertions in the hope that someone will be challenged to prove me wrong. co'o mi'e xorxes ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com