From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Wed Feb 21 19:15:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 22 Feb 2001 03:15:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 3394 invoked from network); 22 Feb 2001 03:14:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Feb 2001 03:14:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Feb 2001 04:16:04 -0000 Received: (from rlpowell@localhost) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id WAA11138 for lojban@onelist.com; Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:21:11 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2001 22:21:11 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: set mechanics Message-ID: <20010221222111.D5703@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@onelist.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell There was a discussion about sets a little while ago where I was whining about the incompleteness of set operations. I don't remember the resolution, actually, so this idea may be old, but I want to make sure that my current idea works. Does anyone interpret: mi ce do ku'a na'e bo do as resulting in anything other than the set with the single element 'mi'? While I'm on the topic of sets: mi ce do goi ko'a binds ko'a to do. Does anyone have an elegant way to bind ko'a to the two element set mi ce do? ko'a goi lu'i mi ce do works, but is a bit kludgy. Thanks, all! -Robin -- http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rlpowell/ BTW, I'm male, honest. Information wants to be free. Too bad most of it is crap. --RLP