From rlpowell@csclub.uwaterloo.ca Thu Feb 22 17:40:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rlpowell@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_4); 23 Feb 2001 01:40:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 80038 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2001 01:40:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 23 Feb 2001 01:40:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca) (129.97.134.11) by mta2 with SMTP; 23 Feb 2001 01:40:43 -0000 Received: (from rlpowell@localhost) by calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id UAA04394; Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:46:56 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 20:46:56 -0500 To: Jorge Llambias Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] set mechanics Message-ID: <20010222204655.D2351@calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> Mail-Followup-To: Jorge Llambias , lojban@yahoogroups.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from jjllambias@hotmail.com on Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 01:32:39AM +0000 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 01:32:39AM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > > > >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? That's certainly how I intend to use it, unless someone has a better idea. But not having a complete set of set operations in a language thet has sets as a fundamental type _really_ bothers me, so we need either set negation or set subtraction. na'e bo seems the most elegant solution to me, but I still think this was a major oversight. > > > (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. Ah, OK, I see your point. -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