[lojban-beginners] Re: closed systems error

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la ian cusku di'e

> I repeat the definition of the operation again:
>
> .ica'e lu luman zei nunzga li'u cu brivla
> 	le si'o gasnu le logji nunsei
> 		gi'e snigau fi le se nunsei kei
> 	le zgana se zukte ku
> 		ce'o lo se nunsei ku
> 		ce'o lo te nunsei ku
> 		ce'o le zgana poi ciste fi pisu'o lo'i luman zei nunzga vau
> 	la lojban

That's easier to understand because you talk about the
things being separated rather than the labels
given to one part and not given (!) to the other. Having a
place for a label not given was very odd.

> (I got rid of the nu'o, the sumti are optional anyway, so I don't need it.

This may be a confusion. The argument places are not optional,
in the sense that there must always be a value even if it is
not explicitly stated. It is optional to ellipsize the value,
if context makes it clear what the value is or it is not
important to specify it, but there has to be a value for the
relationship to hold. When you want to cancel the argument
place you need to do it explicitly with {zi'o}.

> I also made sure I talk about systems of subsets of luman zei nunzga)

So your definition is recursive: You define {luman zei nunzga}
in terms of {luman zei nunzga}.

> So now we can say:
>
> .i le velbo'e goi ko'a cu velbo'e
> 	le velbo'e be da poi velbo'e ke'a ku'o
> 	le velbo'e be de poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'a
>
> The selbo'e of this observation is something the system can deal with.

Is it the same system that you put in x1? Using {le} here
is confusing, I can't tell whether {le velbo'e} refers
each time to different systems or to the same system.
I suppose you don't mean {ko'a velbo'e ko'a ko'a}, or
do you? Can x2 and x3 hold the same value? Weren't
they the two parts that got created in the separation?

> The terbo'e can be observed, but the system gets to a point where it gets 
> in trouble (or rather: may get in trouble when it gets caught).

{le velbo'e be da poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'a} is an odd
description. It can only work thanks to the non-veridicality
of {le}. It is similar to {le broda poi ke'a na broda}, so
a description that may be suggestive of something, but certainly
not veridical.

> This example also shows that the system is fine as long as it only observes 
> its observations:
>
> "brode le brode le brode" always works.

Is that meant to be {brode vo'a vo'a}? How can x2 and x3
be the same thing, given that by definition they are the
two things that got separated in the observation?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. 
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail