From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Mar 04 11:29:30 2000 Received: (qmail 19247 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2000 19:29:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Mar 2000 19:29:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.142) by mta2.onelist.org with SMTP; 4 Mar 2000 19:29:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 78011 invoked by uid 0); 4 Mar 2000 19:29:45 -0000 Message-ID: <20000304192945.78010.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.58 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 04 Mar 2000 11:29:45 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.58] To: lojban@onelist.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Use and abuse of sets Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 11:29:45 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-eGroups-From: "Jorge Llambias" From: "Jorge Llambias" le se xadni be la lojbab cusku di'e >How much then is pimu lei ci djacu - half of one member or half of the sum? Half of the sum. >How about pimu le ci djacu? I don't know, do you? Do we even have a convention for this? Half of each? >pimu le'i ci djacu is clear because we can't >talk of half-members of sets. Half a set is clear? Especially a set with an odd number of members? What is it? It is not another set, I hope. >Fine, and to the extent that you are considered an authority based on your >extensive usage, that could be seen as good or bad (Welcome to the dilemma >of Lojban Central, Jorge! Glad you could join us %^) No dilemma for me! I don't expect anyone to take my words based on authority, I sure hope they will be persuaded or fail to be persuaded by my arguments, and not be influenced by any perceived authority that I certainly don't have. I much rather have my views challenged so that I can modify them when errors or inconsistencies are pointed out. And I do often change them, just compare what I'm saying now to what I said two or three years ago. I don't take what you say as authoritative, so why should I expect what I say to be taken as such? :) >I guess I prefer the usage without the arguments unless someone fails to >understand (which of course means that someone has to be trying to >understand, which remains a problem with much Lojban writing today). And yet you spend much more time on the arguments than on the usage. This thread started by my explaining to Adam why I would not use a set where he would, and it was mainly the discussion with you that turned it into an argument. Not that I blame you, I sure enjoy the opportunity to express my views as detailed as I can make them, and I think we all learn from these discussions. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com