[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
In a message dated 2/15/2002 11:23:36 AM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hidden.email writes:I see you won't explain what those functions with empty domains I didn't know that was called for, but in the instant case, they are natural numbers. And of course I accept normal functions, including constant-valued ones. Function theory with only the empty domain cases would be remarkably boring, even by mathematics standards. <<I the Then your position is that a definition requires the mention of the name? The use is not good enough for a definition?> Definitions are, by definition, of words. To be sure, there are exemplary definitions that talk about the things, but that is only a convenience (or a mistake, depedning on how generous you are). But you can't define a thing. <<I the "Let x=5" is sloppy, the Lojbanic version would be: "Let 'x' be the name of a variable x, such that x = 5"> This wouldn't usually be a definition, rather than an instantiation, where 'x' is already specified in some functional way and here we are assigning it (not its name, so we use it name) a value. I suppose that some computer people call that definition, too. For actually introducing 'x,' the second is correcter. <<I the Are you really saying that? Or does the rule apply only to the definition of functions?> I think the sloppiness is mainly in definition, but it can creep in other places and occasionally wreak havoc. |