From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Mar 04 12:42:17 2000 Received: (qmail 15220 invoked from network); 4 Mar 2000 20:42:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m2.onelist.org with QMQP; 4 Mar 2000 20:42:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.24) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 4 Mar 2000 20:42:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 38669 invoked by uid 0); 4 Mar 2000 20:42:31 -0000 Message-ID: <20000304204231.38668.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.57 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 04 Mar 2000 12:42:31 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.57] To: lojban@onelist.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Use and abuse of sets Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2000 12:42:31 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-eGroups-From: "Jorge Llambias" From: "Jorge Llambias" la lojbab a le ri se xadni cu cusku di'e > > >How about pimu le ci djacu? > > > >I don't know, do you? Do we even have a convention for this? > >Half of each? > >Nope, the outer quantifier is selection from the inner quantifier; no >special rule for a fractional quantifier. So this is half of one water. Ok. I won't even mention the kind of problems this may raise when there are other quantifiers involved in the same expression. > > >pimu le'i ci djacu is clear because we can't > > >talk of half-members of sets. > >OK, I should have used an even numbered set. In such a case it is >clear. I agree that half is undefined for odd integer sets. Even for even numbers it is not so clear, but I'm not particularly worried, since I don't use sets. :) >Sorry, but And has already piped up and said that he takes your >pronouncements as authority based on your presumed level of skill. You're >stuck now %^) That's And's problem, not mine. And besides, And and I usually end up agreeing on some compromise of our initial views after discussing something. Our discussions are convergent. When you and I discuss something, we end up having more dissimilar views on the subject than what we started with. Our discussions are divergent. :) > > I sure hope they will be persuaded or > >fail to be persuaded by my arguments, > >That assumes that they understand them %^) I trust the average Lojbanist has a high enough capacity for understanding to compensate for my lack of clarity. > >I don't take what you say as authoritative, so why > >should I expect what I say to be taken as such? :) > >Because most of Lojbanistan seems to look for authority, I disagree. I think most Lojbanists are highly independent-minded. The amount of discussion in this list is proof of that, and even half of what is discussed in Lojban is about Lojban, and everybody has their own opinions there too. >or there never >would have been such a concept as "Lojban Central". I always took it to be a half-sarcastic description (was it Nick who started it?). Anyway, sometimes authoritative pronouncements are necessary, to define some convention for example, but when inconsistent pronouncements are made they are challenged even if they come from Lojban Central. > >And yet you spend much more time on the arguments than on the > >usage. > >That leaves the field open to you for usage, doesn't it? Not really. I try to keep up with both. These days Michael and others are doing a lot more usage than I can manage. >I wish I had time to be more than a spectator, but especially when we get >days like the last two, I despair this will ever happen. I had a lot of free time these last few days, was it noticeable? :) But I probably won't have much free time starting Monday. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com