From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Aug 09 19:46:53 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 10 Aug 2001 02:46:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 60638 invoked from network); 10 Aug 2001 02:46:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Aug 2001 02:46:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.166) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Aug 2001 02:46:52 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 9 Aug 2001 19:46:52 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.44 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:46:52 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.44] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: RE: partial-bridi anaphora (was: RE: [lojban] no'a Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 02:46:52 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Aug 2001 02:46:52.0735 (UTC) FILETIME=[B5F69CF0:01C12146] From: "Jorge Llambias" la and cusku di'e >Also I partially retract my original objection, because I recently >realized that I had been failing to think of restricted quantification >as restricted. (I'd been thinking of {da poi broda} as {da noi >broda}, i.e. as {da zo'u da broda}.) Realizing my error, I now think >you're right to approve John's analysis. Er, it's not John's analysis I'm approving. I'm saying that {su'o da poi broda zo'u ... su'o da} means {su'o da poi broda zo'u ... su'o de poi broda}. I'm recycling the same variable to be used with the same restriction but bound by a new quantifier. John said it was {su'o da poi broda zo'u... da}. So the new quantifier just vanishes. And if the new quantifier was anything but {su'o}, I have no idea how to formulate it logically. >What I was thinking was that: > > le broda goi ko'a > >= ro da po'u pa le broda ge'o goi ko'a zo'u > >i.e. assigns ko'a to each of le broda separately, so any single >use of {ko'a} is a reference to just one of le broda, while > > le broda ku goi ko'a > >would assign ko'a to the whole group of le broda, so that a single >use of ko'a would be equivalent to {ro le broda}. I think you should need {ro ko'a} to get a new binding, exactly parallel to the case of {da}. > > An isomorphism is a one-to-one homomorphism. > >And what's a homomorphism, then? A mapping F such that F(x*y) = F(x)*F(y). Mind you, it's been years since I've seen any of this, so I might be forgetting something. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp