WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti

posts: 2388

Only abstraction clauses with {ce'u} in them are functions (but sometimes the {ce'u} are implicit. The rough part is what they are functions from to. Or they (the ones with gaps) are references to general properties (etc.?) and the ones without gaps are to particular properties (etc.) And that is not too easy to deal with either. But, yes, the idea here goes back at least to Churh's lambda calculus and eventually to Russell (and probably further).
Now, whether that is just what {ce'u} is meant to do is less clear; CLL does not seem to envision more than one {ce'u} in an abstraction, for example.

Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2004 at 06:11:28AM -0700, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: BPFK Section: Grammatical Pro-sumti
> The definition of {ce'u} suggests that it is syntactically like a
> quantifier, rather than like a quantifier-bound-variable all in one.

What's interesting is the extent (total) with which the definition of
ce'u disagrees with the definition given in Chapter 7. It doesn't even

  • have* a definition in Chapter 11.


Looking at Chapter 7 and Chapter 11, I'm not totally certain what ce'u
is, but I *am* certain that it's not lambda of the lambda calculus.

Unless you want to say that all abstraction clauses are functions?

-Robin