[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: fancu (was: Re: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies




la pycyn cusku di'e

> assuming each of your spouses
> has one and only one bed.

Too strong; only requires that each has a bed -- they might all have the same one, which might or might not be the only one in the house. No evidence this
is meant to be a bijection or even a surjection.

Each spouse must have one and only one bed if it's going
to be a function. If you allow more than one bed per spouse
it is not a function. I did not say that each spouse had to
have a different bed, nor that all beds had to be had.


<I have no idea in what context this question might be useful though.
You're not even asking that the function be one-to-one, so more than
one spouse might end up in the same bed.>

So, why is this an objection? Most functions are not 1-1 and are specified on
as injections not surjections.

It was not an objection. It was bewilderment as to the
circumstances when one would want to use such a sentence.

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com