jbovlaste
a lojban dictionary editing system
User:
Pass:

Home
Get A Printable Dictionary
Search Best Words
Recent Changes
How You Can Help
valsi - All
valsi - Preferred Only
natlang - All
natlang - Preferred Only
Languages
XML Export
user Listing
Report Bugs
Utilities
Status
Help
Admin Request
Create Account
Discussion of "fancyxra"
[parent] [root]
Comment #2: Re: Domain and range should be specified
Curtis W Franks (Sun Mar 2 19:52:16 2014)

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.

Currently, jbovlaste will accept data for 69 languages.
You are not logged in.

  recent changes jbovlaste main
This is jbovlaste, the lojban dictionary system.
The main code was last changed on Wed 07 Oct 2020 05:54:55 PM PDT.
All content is public domain. By submitting content, you agree to place it in the public domain to the fullest extent allowed by local law.
jbovlaste is an official project of the logical language group, and is now headed by Robin Lee Powell.
E-mail him if you have any questions.
care to log in?