From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Feb 22 17:33:32 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 23 Feb 2001 01:32:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 24942 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2001 01:32:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Feb 2001 01:32:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.240.178) by mta3 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2001 02:33:44 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 17:32:39 -0800 Received: from 200.41.210.9 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:32:39 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.9] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] set mechanics Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001 01:32:39 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Feb 2001 01:32:39.0722 (UTC) FILETIME=[825CC0A0:01C09D38] From: "Jorge Llambias" >From: Robin Lee Powell >mi ce do ku'a na'e bo lu'i do > >Think I like that best so far. But {na'e bo lu'i do} is "something/some set other than the set {do}", it could be a set not containing mi as a member. Or should we make a new convention for na'e bo da when da is a set? > > (I don't understand how {to'e} could possibly work here.) > >'polar opposite' sounds like it would generate the inverse when applied >to a set to me. To me it sounds like something else, if anything at all. For example, the opposite of the set of bad things could be the set of good things, but not the set of non-bad things. I can't see {to'e} as marking the complement. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.