WikiDiscuss

pc:
> I gather that {lo'i broda} is a distributive
> group of sets for you.

I know it is pointless to say this again, but
anyway: no, it is not a group for me. It is a set or
several sets of broda, not a group of sets.

> The point at this place is that {lo'i broda} and
> {lo selcmi be lo broda}, being different
> descriptions are not compelled to be the same
> set(s) — any more than two occurrences of {su'o
> da poi broda} need to be the same broda(s).

Of course not. All it means is that you can replace
one expression with the other in a given context
and get the same meaning. Neither expression is
compelled to be anything without a context.

> In the current system — not in your ideal one
> (and I really don't think you marked that shift
> at all) — {lo'i pa broda} is a set(or even sets)
> containing exactly a single broda, while {lo pa
> selcmi be lo broda} is a single set of broda of
> indeterminate size.

Right, and I don't propose to equate those.

If you look carefully at the definition, I equate
{lo'i pa broda} with {lo selcmi be lo pa broda},
not with {lo pa selcmi be lo broda}.
{lo'i} = {lo selcmi be lo}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

___
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com