RE: [jboske] more true (was: RE: Re: ka ka (was: Context Leapers)

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

> la and cusku di'e
> 
> > I don't disagree with anything you've said (except that it needs
> > to be clarified, IMO, that .9 entails "not (wholly) true").
> 
> It all depends on how you define NOT for continuous truth values.

I don't see why it depends on this. If pi ro = (wholly) true, then
.9 entails "not pi ro".

> A value of .9 is not a value of 1 just as it is not a value of .8.

Yes. I think "not .9" should be true if the value is .8 or ro or 0.

> But we probably want a softer "NOT" for continuous truth values.
> For example, a function that maps value x to value 1-x.
> Then {.9 <bridi>} does not entail {not 1 <bridi>} = {0 <bridi>}.

to'e?

> > A further point: you are suggesting that {ko'a clani} is a
> > proposition that is never wholly true. That may be right, but
> > I would also like to introduce a further example that sometimes
> > needs fuzzy values and sometimes doesn't.
> > 
> > 1. He is in the room.
> > 
> > If he is half in the room and half out, then he is sort of in
> > the room -- the truth value of "he is in the room" is between
> > pi no and pi ro. If he is entirely in the room, but only by a
> > few inches, then the truth value is pi ro, but nonetheless he
> > is barely in the room, and he is 'less in the room' than
> > someone standing further from the doorway.
> 
> Yes, I agree. I would say almost any proposition is susceptible
> of both treatments. {ko'a clani} can also be seen as a yes/no
> proposition in some contexts. I'm saying that whichever kind
> of modifier we use determines how we're treating the proposition
> for the purposes of truth evaluation.

Fair enough. I wonder if there will be ambiguous cases, when
pi PA values are ambiguous between (a) how much p is happening,
and (b) the extent to which p satisfies the threshold criteria
for being true at all. For example, {ko'a ja'a xi pi bi melbi} 
might mean that ko'a's beauty measures .8 in millihelens, or
it might mean that ko'a is not quite beautiful but is close to
the threshold of beauty. I'd prefer to stick with the latter
reading only.

--And.