| In a message dated 10/5/2002 6:28:09 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << My own view is that 3-valued truth functions applies to a simple >> Painfully true, but not so bad if you settle for a small set that represent in some useful fashion the main connectives you want (and that have easy patterns to remember: Min, Max, Mirror and so on). This can then go pretty easily to any number of values you want -- even reals (it is Sum and Product tht get you). << . 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. > > You mean something like "almost beautiful"? I think I'd prefer > {ko'a na xi pi re melbi} for the "not beautiful" side. No, I mean something like "beautifulish, on the threshold of being wholly beautiful, but not quite wholly beautiful, but closer to being wholly beautiful and to being wholly not beautiful, e.g. satisfying .8 of the criteria for being beautiful, where something definitely beautiful satisfies .ro, and something definitely not beautiful satisfies .no". "Almost beautiful" would be ambiguous between "slightly less than pi ro" and "slightly less than pi no". It's like the difference between being outside a room but close to the entrance and being most of the way across the threshold. >> I would see And's case as a function on beautiful and xorxes pretty usually as either a truth value comment or a quantitative evaluation (these are the hardest two to separate even though they are the furthest apart conceptually). |