From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Mar 11 09:57:58 2000 Received: (qmail 27302 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2000 17:46:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m4.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Mar 2000 17:46:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.234) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 11 Mar 2000 17:46:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 42116 invoked by uid 0); 11 Mar 2000 17:46:27 -0000 Message-ID: <20000311174627.42115.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.35 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:46:27 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.35] To: lojban@onelist.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Mass/Set Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 09:46:27 PST Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-eGroups-From: "Jorge Llambias" From: "Jorge Llambias" la pyjymym cusku diŽe >(I didn't wish to make any claim on probability distribution of eating >situations behind the claim {lei nanmu cu citka lo plise}.) Now that I think about it again, I don't agree that {lei nanmu cu citka lo plise} is similar to {su'o nanmu cu citka lo plise}. It really depends on what exactly does {citka} mean. Does eating a fraction of an apple count as "eating an apple"? I think it doesn't, so if some men (as a group, together) eat an apple, it may be the case than none of them can be said to have eaten an apple by himself. > > > {le nanmu cu bevri le bloti} > > > Yes, each of the men has to carry each of the boats. > >That isn't what I was questioning. I agree with what you say, but the >issue is whether "the boats" refers to the same boats for each nanmu. Sorry, that's what I meant. I think it has to be the same boats for each of the men. But I don't think this issue has been fully explored for more complex situations. For example, what does {le nanmu cu bevri le ri bloti} mean? Does it mean that each man carries his own boat(s), or that each carries each of their boats, the boats they all have in common? What if we use {vo'a} instead of {ri}? What if we use {ko'a}? Or {ny}? ># 6.1) la djan. klama le zarci ># .ije la .alis. klama le zarci ># ># 6.2) la djan .e la .alis. klama le zarci > >I'm pretty sure that in example 6.1, the two occurrences of `le zarci' >can refer to two different sets of markets. I agree. It is unlikely, but that is not your point. >If I'm right in the above, then the claim that one may rigorously >transform either of 6.1 and 6.2 into the other entails that different >sets of zarci can be meant in 6.2 too. If that is the case, then I'd >have thought that this would extend to {le prenu cu klama le zarci} and >indeed also to {le nanmu cu bevri le bloti}. I agree with your reasoning. I think that the book exaggerates a little when it says that one can be _rigorously_ transformed into the other. It can be only when it is understood in 6.1 that {le zarci} refers both times to the same object, which I think is what was being (unexplicitly) assumed. >My guess is that the last paragraph of the quote from chapter 14 is >incorrect, and that the two aren't identical unless one inserts "bi'unai" >into example 6.1. Yes, I agree. Although even with {bi'unai} there would be room for arguing it, since it might conceivably be yet another market mentioned before. {bi'unai} is not rigorously strict either. [...] >To discuss this properly, I think we have to phrase things as "the >claim that {le nanmu cu bevri le bloti} can be equivalently expressed >as {ro cmima le'i nanmu cu bevri ro cmima le'i bloti}", so that >le/le'i refers to what the hypothetical claimer means rather what we >mean when writing it. Ok, yes. (Minor point: you need {be} before both {le'i}s there.) >I'm having difficulty expressing that (i.e. the thing in double-quotes >above) in Lojban. Maybe something like: {la'e lu le nanmu cu bevri le bloti li'u cu smuni dunli la'e lu ...} co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com