Re: Operator precedence in Lojban mathematics

[cbmvax!uunet!math.ucla.edu!jimc]

> > Despite PC's fulminations, Lojban is ideally suited to the concept of a
> > "number" as "an equivalence class of sets all of which have the same
> > number of elements".  Then lo'i cimei becomes "the number three".
> 
> Yes, but what if you like Von Neumann numbers?

This is analogous to what PC says: Lojban has to be culturally neutral.
My response: it doesn't bother me that one model of numbers 
automatically fits one of the grammar constructs :-)  

The real question is, should "li ci" be made illegal?  In other words,
once one recognizes that one model of numbers is supported in the 
grammar, should the language designer say "OK, that's enough, I'm not
going to put in any more features to support numbers"?  A principle of
Lojban (not loved by all designers) is "kill one bird with many stones",
and so clearly the Lojban designers will retain "li ci".  

But how does "li ci" represent Von Neumann numbers?  Only in that it
represents whatever number model that pleases the speaker.  A big plus 
for "lo'i cimei" is that its meaning is unambiguous.  I would hope that
MEX grammar would accept "lo'i cimei" without a lot of gyrations, not
being restricted only to "li ci".  

		-- jimc