In fact, I am not even sure that the drawer needs to be specified. A graph
is a graph no matter who draws it and the only aspect that may be of
interest/concern is the medium in which it has been displayed (for example
handmade paper-and-pencil or computer generated?); the authorship can be
specified in other ways and is not vital to the word, I think, as a graph
is an inherent mathematical entity belonging to a function.

Comment #4: Re: Domain and range should be specified

Wuzzy (Sun Mar 2 23:34:16 2014)

krtisfranks wrote: > In fact, I am not even sure that the drawer needs to be specified. A graph > is a graph no matter who draws it and the only aspect that may be of > interest/concern is the medium in which it has been displayed (for example > handmade paper-and-pencil or computer generated?); the authorship can be > specified in other ways and is not vital to the word, I think, as a graph > is an inherent mathematical entity belonging to a function. Let’s keep the place. As long you aknowledge that all graphs have a drawer, there is no harm done by keeping the place. If you just do not care about a drawer, just don't mention it when using the lujvo. Why I say this: It makes the lujvo more regular, which is a plus. Also, the drawer place is the last one, so it doesn’t get in the way. But if you can show me that the a drawer _does not apply_ (this is more than just “I don’t care”) to a graph, then I may be convinced that this place better be deleted. To me, all pictures somehow have someone (or something) to draw it. So why not graphs, too?

Comment #5: Re: Domain and range should be specified Curtis W Franks (Mon Mar 3 01:21:32 2014) Wuzzy wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > In fact, I am not even sure that the drawer needs to be specified. A > graph > > is a graph no matter who draws it and the only aspect that may be of > > interest/concern is the medium in which it has been displayed (for > example > > handmade paper-and-pencil or computer generated?); the authorship can be > > specified in other ways and is not vital to the word, I think, as a > graph > > is an inherent mathematical entity belonging to a function. > Let’s keep the place. As long you aknowledge that all graphs have a > drawer, there is no harm done by keeping the place. If you just do not > care about a drawer, just don't mention it when using the lujvo. > Why I say this: It makes the lujvo more regular, which is a plus. Also, > the drawer place is the last one, so it doesn’t get in the way. > But if you can show me that the a drawer _does not apply_ (this is more > than just “I don’t care”) to a graph, then I may be convinced that > this place better be deleted. > To me, all pictures somehow have someone (or something) to draw it. So why > not graphs, too? Well the parabola of x^2 (over any specified domain and range) is precisely the same and exists always. It is much like the unit circle centered at the origin in R^2 : it just is, independent of any drawer. In fact, any drawing of these objects is actually either a complete and ideally perfect expression thereof or not actually a representation of them unless we are to understand that errors should be ignored; in the latter case, the picture is actually of another object. But I suppose that the issue here is one of English. If we follow the meaning.of "graph" as used by mathematicians who use the term this way (which is a somewhat limited application), then the picture is actually indistinguishable from the exact object (set); but if we are to understand it as a representation of the graph, then it may be imprecise and the drawer is possibly important. Pedantically, just so we are clear, a function actually cannot be drawn; only its graph/representation (trace) can be drawn. For example, x^2 cannot be drawn but a parabola can be (arguably). What about the other proposed terbri? Comment #7: Corrections Re: Domain and range should be specified Curtis W Franks (Mon Mar 3 01:34:04 2014) I saw your response to the other bit. Thank you. The drawer terbri is not the last but is actually the penultimate terbri of this current proposal. Comment #9: Re: Domain and range should be specified Wuzzy (Mon Mar 3 16:01:37 2014) Okay, to clarify: I clearly interpret the word “graph” here as “graphical representation”. To say a graph of a function has to be perfect, otherwise its not a graph is not practical to me. This would automatically disqualify any drawing by hand. Also graphs on a, let’s say, LCD monitor are not perfect, because of the pixels. You always have this tiny error. To say a graph *must* be perfect would disqualify all these images. So I still think the current definition of fancyxra is pretty good and practical and does not need to be changed. If you want to interpret “graph” in a strict mathematical sense (whatever that may be), I’d suggest to create a new lujvo, because I think you mean something different than I think. Maybe a new lujvo could settle these disputes, hopefully.