BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers
pc:
> Oh, yes. Not only may {lo selcmi be lo broda}
> refer to more than one set — and so not be
> identical to the referent of {lo'i broda}, which
> is one set, but also, while {lo'i broda} contains
> only broda, the set(s) among lo selcmi be lo
> broda may have other things in them as well --
> may indeed be preponderantly non-brodas.
That's already contemplated. The actual definition I have on
the proposal page is:
lo selcmi be ro lo [PA] broda e no lo na me lo [PA] broda
Ideally we should have a brivla meaning "x1 is the set of x2",
where x2 are all and only the members of x1, then the definition
would be simpler. I suppose nothing really stops us from defining
{selcmi} that way, since it doesn't really have to mean exactly
{se cmima}.
In the case of {loi} we do have the desired brivla, that's why
{loi PA broda} can be simply {lo gunma be lo PA broda}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
___
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com