mathematical proof: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:04, 4 November 2013

.iju'a da poi nalfrinu ku'o de poi nalfrinu ku'o di poi frinu ku'o zo'u di tenfa da de

.i la'e di'u jalge la'e di'e

.i le seltenfa be li re bei li re be'o goi ko'a cu nalfrinu

.i le tenfa be ko'a bei ko'a be'o goi fo'a cu frinu jonai nalfrinu

.i da'i fo'a cu frinu .inaja lo frinu no'u fo'a cu tenfa lo nalfrinu no'u ko'a lo nalfrinu no'u ko'a

.i li re tenfa fo'a ko'a ki'u le du'u li vei ny te'a my ve'o te'a sy du li ny te'a vei my pi'i sy ve'o

.i da'i fo'a cu nalfrinu inaja lo frinu no'u li re cu tenfa lo nalfrinu no'u fo'a lo nalfrinu no'u ko'a

.ija'o da poi nalfrinu ku'o de poi nalfrinu ku'o di poi frinu ku'o zo'u di tenfa da de

from a while ago:

noda zo'u ge da numcu gi node numcu gi'e balzma da

i ni'ibo fu'e da'i ge da no'u xy numcu gi node balzma xy

.i ku'i rodi ganai di numcu gi le sumji be di bei li pa cu numcu

.iseni'ibo le sumji be xy bei li pa cu numcu

.i ji'a rodi zo'u le sumji be di bei li pa cu balzma di

.iseni'ibo le sumji be xy bei li pa cu balzma xy

.iseni'ibo di no'u le sumji be xy bei li pa zo'u ge di numcu gi di balzma xy

.i ku'i la'edi'u natfe le se sruma

.iseni'ibo da'inai fu'o noda zo'u ge da numcu gi node balzma da .i di'u nibli se jarco

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-==  Section 2.1 ==
+.iju'a da poi nalfrinu ku'o de poi nalfrinu ku'o di poi frinu ku'o zo'u di tenfa da de
-* lu .ue sai y xu sfasa su'o da lo nu punji ra ti li'u ju'e
+.i la'e di'u jalge la'e di'e
-** Should be "nu sfasa", I think.
-* {ni'o py nergau lo tolcitno je mudri vorme .i sy viska lo jinme nerklaji poi li'a citno}
+.i le seltenfa be li re bei li re be'o goi ko'a cu nalfrinu
-** jinme nerklaji? klaji laj          street               'avenue'             x1 is a street/avenue/lane/drive/cul-de-sac/way/alley/[[jbocre: road|road]] at x2 accessing x3
-* {.i lo nenri vorme cu jinme gi'e za'a tsali}
+.i le tenfa be ko'a bei ko'a be'o goi fo'a cu frinu jonai nalfrinu
-** Maybe, {vrogai} or {vrobi'u}?
-* {.i .u'u mi lo ka xanka cu dukse lo nu citka djica}
+.i da'i fo'a cu frinu .inaja lo frinu no'u fo'a cu tenfa lo nalfrinu no'u ko'a lo nalfrinu no'u ko'a
-** If this means "Sorry, but my nervousness is more than my hunger", {dukse} doesn't work here. Don't know what does.
-* {gi'e kajde lo nu catra da poi na jundi ri}
+.i li re tenfa fo'a ko'a ki'u le du'u li vei ny te'a my ve'o te'a sy du li ny te'a vei my pi'i sy ve'o
-** fi lo nu
-* {.e'u ma'a xruti le sanmi kumfa}
+.i da'i fo'a cu nalfrinu inaja lo frinu no'u li re cu tenfa lo nalfrinu no'u fo'a lo nalfrinu no'u ko'a
-** fi le
-* {gi'e kajde lo nu catra da poi na jundi ri}
+.ija'o da poi nalfrinu ku'o de poi nalfrinu ku'o di poi frinu ku'o zo'u di tenfa da de
-** fi lo nu
-* {.e'u ma'a xruti le sanmi kumfa}
+-----
-** fi le
-* {.i ji'a ry sanli gi'e skaci ke midju polgau se pi'o lo xanri skaci gi'e ckire cuksu fi dy}
+from a while ago:
-** s/cuksu/cusku/ What does the first part mean, anyway? ry imitates a Middle Polynesian using an imaginary skirt?
-* {.i ku'i mi kanpe lo nu do na se spaji}
+noda zo'u ge da numcu gi node numcu gi'e balzma da
-** kanpe ki'a
-==  Section 2.2 ==
+i ni'ibo fu'e da'i ge da no'u xy numcu gi node balzma xy
-* ni'o loi ci prenu cu casnu lo na vajni ca'o lo nu xruti le sanmi kumfa
+.i ku'i rodi ganai di numcu gi le sumji be di bei li pa cu numcu
-** {xruti fi le sanmi kumfa}
-* {.i sy zgana lo nu le flira be py cu na'e gleki binxo gi'e rivbi dy} "rivbi riv          avoid                'evade'              x1 avoids/evades/shuns/escapes/skirts [[jbocre: fate|fate]] x2 (event)"
+.iseni'ibo le sumji be xy bei li pa cu numcu
-** So {tu'a dy}?
-* s/sabju/sabji/
+.i ji'a rodi zo'u le sumji be di bei li pa cu balzma di
-* {.i sy cuksu lu mi ka'e}
-** s/cuksu/cusku/
+.iseni'ibo le sumji be xy bei li pa cu balzma xy
-* {.i ji'a ry sanli gi'e skaci ke midju polgau se pi'o lo xanri skaci gi'e ckire cuslu fi dy}
-** s/cuslu/cusku/ ?
+.iseni'ibo di no'u le sumji be xy bei li pa zo'u ge di numcu gi di balzma xy
-<pre>
+.i ku'i la'edi'u natfe le se sruma
-> > {ei} shows how the speaker feels things ought to be, not an
+.iseni'ibo da'inai fu'o noda zo'u ge da numcu gi node balzma da .i di'u nibli se jarco
-> > oblgation by the speaker.
->
-> Erm, how do you figure that?
-Usage, usefulness, consistency, and even CLL supports that
-interpretation.
-Usage: that's how I've always used it and that's how I've seen
-it used too:
-<Taliesin> do .ei ciska bau la lojban
-<xod> .ei su'odo rivbi le nu penmi .oi
-<xod> .ei la tsali cu fanva
-<zef> ei zo te basti zo to di'u
-Usefulness: The feeling of obligation on the part of the
-speaker corresponds to the feeling of how things ought to be
-when the speaker is the agent, so it is a more restricted
-sense. There is not much point in restricting {ei} to sentences
-where {mi} is the agent.
-Consistency: the whole e-series of attitudinals is used for
-attitudes of the speaker towards a hypothetical situation.
-CLL has two examples with {.ei}. The first one is funny:
-.10)    .ei mi tisna
-le karce ctilyvau
-[[jbocre: obligation|obligation]] I fill
-the car-type-of petroleum-container.
-I should fill the car's gas tank.
-It is not decisive because {mi} is the agent, although the
-English translation is wrong. It really should be "I should
-become stuffed with the car's gas tank". (To be fair, I think
-the place structure of {tisna} was changed at some point.)
-But the other example:
-.5)    pe'i la kartagos. .ei se daspo
-[[jbocre: I opine!|I opine!]] Carthage [[jbocre: obligation|obligation]] is-destroyed.
-In my opinion, Carthage should be destroyed.
-clearly shows that {.ei} is about how the speaker feels things
-ought to be.
-mu'o mi'e xorxes
-</pre>
-==  Section 2.3 ==
-* to'u nai jai se srera fai pa valsi po lo ro moi jufra po lo pa moi jufmei po lo 2 pi 3 pi'e 2 moi se fendi i mi stidi lo nu zo marxa cu basti zo maxra
-* {pa cnebo jinsi jadni sy .i le jinsi}
-** jinsi ki'a
-* s/cuksu/cusku/
-* s/maxra/marxa/
-<pre>
-> > > fe lu .oi do pu kakne lo nu jdegau mi tu'a le janco
-> >
-> > s/jdegau/kajde
->
-> Nope.  kajde is non-agentive.
-{jdegau fi mi fo tu'a le janco} then?
-> > > .i zo'o nai mi ca ponse pa barda ke skapi ciblu
-> >
-> > I think this is pilka more than skapi.
-> > skapi is the material, it is the pilka once
-> > it has been removed from the animal.
->
-> I disagree.  skapi need not have been removed, and pilka includes
-> fruit rinds and so on.  I'm going to ask the archivists about this.
-I certainly don't dispute {pilka} includes fruit rinds and tree bark.
-There are many body-parts that work both for animals and plants.
-{pilka} is clearly a part-whole relationship.
-{skapi}, on the other hand, is a product-source relationship, like
-{silka} and {sunla}. I think gismu place structures should be much
-more regular than what they are, but in some cases there are very
-clear classes of place structures, like specimen-species, part-whole,
-substance-composition, substance-source. {pilka} is clearly
-part-whole and {skapi} is clearly substance-source.
-(I'm not exactly sure what to make of Lojbab's response on this.)
-</pre>
-Section 2.4
-<pre>
-> > > .i ji'a xy rinka so'u da poi xlali
-> >
-> > I read this as "also, it causes a few bad things", and was
-> > expecting to be told what they were. I think what D might
-> > have meant is that it doesn't cause any important bad thing?
->
-> s/so'u/pi so'u roi/
-A fraction of an occasion?
-> > > lo ni sy certu cu banzu lo nu na birti fa lo nu lo kalte cu
-> > > mrobi'i
-> >
-> > s/mrobi'i/mrobi'o
-> >
-> > I don't understand the sentence though. Susan's skill was
-> > enough to not be certain of a hunter's death?
->
-> Yes.  "She's good enough that it's not a certainly that she'll get
-> one of us killed".
->
-> s/birti/ju'o gasnu/; see if that helps.
-Hmm, ok. The {fa} is wrong though.
-> > > .i ku'i ca zi bo ky nergau le citka kumfa to ri vasru vy jo'u sy
-> > > toi
-> >
-> > I think we already knew that V and S were in the room.
->
-> No, we had no idea what room they were in.
-...
-> The goal was: "K entered the dining room, where d &amp; s were".
-I see. I would have said {noi vy jo'u sy zvati ke'a}, but I guess
-your phrase is not wrong.
-> > You seem to use {diklo} a lot, I don't really know what it means.
->
-> x1 is near to x2 within possible range x3
-Similar to {jibni} then? But the gi'uste uses "locus". If you look
-at all the definitions that use that word you get a different idea.
-> > > .i re makcu remna cu tcetce terpa lo nu lo fagri [[jbocre: ...|...]] cu jibni
-> > > vo'a? gi'e jbini le makcu bi'i le verba
->
-> What does vo'a bind to there?  Do we even know?
-{re makcu prena} supposedly.
-> > Otherwise we get the fire between between the adults and the
-> > child.
->
-> Erm, *yes*.  That's the point.  The child is causing fire to project
-> from emself towards the parents.
-"between between"?
-My point is that {jbini ko'a bi'i ko'e}, with the duplicated "between",
-is strange. It's {jbini ko'a jo'u ko'e} or {zvati ko'a bi'i ko'e}.
-> > > ni'o .a'o cai sy ca'o na bajra gi'e ku'i jgari pa makcu gi'e
-> > > lacpu ri fa'a lo vomre
-> >
-> > s/vomre/vorme
-> >
-> > "Hopefully, S is not running but grabbing one adult and pulling
-> > them towards the door"??
->
-> "with great hope" was the goal.  i.e. she's scared out of her mind
-> but trying anyways.
-That's not my understanding of how {a'o} works.
-> > > ni'o sy za'u re'u zgana lo nu lo blupinxe cu ka'e sezymuvgau? se
-> > > kai lo mutce mutce sutra
-> >
-> > s/sezymuvgau/muvdu
->
-> Erm, no.  muvdu is not agentive.
-It's not non-agentive either. It's neutral in that respect.
-I can understand using {sezmuvgau} when it is for some reason
-important to emphasize the agentiveness, but not every time.
-Why don't you say {sezklagau} for explicitly agentive {klama},
-or {sezvi'egau} for explicitly agentive {vitke}, or {sezypipygau}
-for explicitly agentive {plipe}, etc.
-Anyway, that's just a minor point of style. (You don't need the
-y-hyphen BTW.)
-On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 07:32:46AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
->
-> > > > .i se ki'u bo ko fargau? le cribe gi'e klama le rirni gi'e
-> > > > xenru cusku
-> > >
-> > > s/fargau/cliva ?
-> >
-> > I just didn't know if I needed a y in fargau.
->
-> Oh, you probably meant {dargau} then. {fargau} is from {farna
-> gasnu}.
-Oh, no, I meant *bargau*.
-> You only need a y-hyphen after {r} in {ryr}, every other consonant
-> is ok after {r}.
-Cool.
-> > I want him to be chanting truth tables; suggestions *very*
-> > welcome.
->
-> You mean you want to express logical notation in plain language?
-More or less, yes.
-> The problem is that in Lojban plain language and logical notation
-> are one and the same (or very close).
-True, but you still need to be able to say "the cmava .e behaves in
-[[jbocre: this|this]] fashion" in Lojban, or we have an incomplete language.
-> {bu'a i ja bu'e} entails, well, {ga bu'a gi bu'e}. You could say
-> {lo du'u ga bu'a gi bu'e cu nibli lo du'u ga lo du'u bu'a cu jetnu
-> gi lo du'u bu'e cu jetnu}, but that's like saying {lo du'u bu'a cu
-> nibli lo du'u lo du'u bu'a cu jetnu}, it's not really related to
-> truth tables.
-As long as it's hyper-logical, it fits the story, but that's not
-really what I was looking for, no.  I suppose a Lojban definition of
-.a that never uses a logical connective would be about right.
-> > > > .i ji'a le barda ke vlagi ctebi cu tunlo gi'e xunre
-> > > ...
-> > > > .i le pinji cu pu tunlo je ke mutce jdari ke'e binxo
-> > >
-> > > tunlo ma?
-> >
-> > punli again.  "swollen"
->
-> I think you forgot to change one of them. But {punli} sounds too
-> permanent for this. Maybe {se preja}?
-Good idea.
--Robin
-> > > > > .i se ki'u bo ko fargau? le cribe gi'e klama le rirni gi'e
-> > > > > xenru cusku
-> > > >
-> > > > s/fargau/cliva ?
-> > >
-> > > I just didn't know if I needed a y in fargau.
-> >
-> > Oh, you probably meant {dargau} then. {fargau} is from {farna
-> > gasnu}.
->
-> Oh, no, I meant *bargau*.
-Make the bear be on the outside of what?
-> > The problem is that in Lojban plain language and logical notation
-> > are one and the same (or very close).
->
-> True, but you still need to be able to say "the cmava .e behaves in
-> [[jbocre: this|this]] fashion" in Lojban, or we have an incomplete language.
-I wrote a definition for {.e} in jbovlaste using {kanxe}.
-All logical connectives are in a logical sense bridi connectives. The
-sumti connectives are just an abbreviated form {ko'a V ko'e broda}
-= {gV ko'a broda gi ko'e broda}, but that is independent of the truth
-tables.
->  I suppose a Lojban definition of
-> .a that never uses a logical connective would be about right.
-It would have to be in terms of {vlina}. I wrote one
-in jbovlaste, which can probably be improved.
-mu'o mi'e xorxes
-</pre>
-==  Section 2.5 ==
-<pre>
-> Yes, but *normally* things consist of more than their minds; this
-> one does not.
->
-> How about:
->
-> .i lo nu lo menli be la ctino po'u la ctino cu se daspo cu mintu
-> lonu ri se daspo
-s/po'u/no'u and I'll buy it.
-mu'o mi'e xorxes
-</pre>
-* .i se ki'u bo sy pilno lo ckana poi vy facki va'u sy gi'e ba zi sipna
-** s/va'u/se va'u/

mathematical proof: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:04, 4 November 2013

Navigation menu

Search