On 7 Wrz, 00:18, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllamb...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 4:39 PM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5 Wrz, 00:24, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:52 AM, ianek <jane...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > It's a property of being a cliquehttp://en.wik= ipedia.org/wiki/Clique_(graph_theory).
>
> >> If you restrict "simxu" to the cliques of graph the= ory, you can't use
> >> it for something like:
>
> >> lo zajba pu simxu lo ka ce'u ce'u sanli kei gi'e = se morna lo remna pramide
> >> "The gymnasts stood on one another's shoulders and f= ormed a human pyramid."
>
> > So what {simxu} really means? That the graph is connected?
>
> Maybe even that is not completely necessary. Probably something like > most/almost all nodes must be connected to other nodes and the
> connections have to be dense enough.
>
> >Arguments
> > based on something that sounds good in a natural language are
> > suspicious for me. The definitions of Lojban words are (in most c= ases)
> > in a natural language, but it doesn't mean that they should b= e
> > ambiguous.
>
> Vague is not the same as ambiguous. You can always define a more
> precise word ("rolrelsi'u"? "simymu'o"? so= mething else?) for the more
> specific meaning. If you make "simxu" require full pairwise<= br> > distributivity, you make it practically unusable for most ordinary
> contexts.

This is exactly the problem with Lojban. It aims at being logical, bu= t
the more logical, the more unusable it is, and vice versa. Some time
ago I thought it was possible to translate from Lojban to formal
logic...

It's as logical as you wan= t it to be. If you believe simxu to be fully pairwise, then so be it. I mea= n, what xorxes and selpa'i have said is simply their interpretation of = what it means; doesn't mean it's that way and no way else. I believ= e that simxu is fully pairwise, and therefore I would never have given the = previous gymnasts example, but I'm not going to misunderstand if someon= e uses it differently. This is an important aspect of Lojban: not everyone = speaks the same way (in fact, it's unlikely that any two people speak t= he same way) and no one must try to impose their will on another.=A0

Lojbanists like to give away their interpretation as if= it were the law without acknowledging that there be any other interpretati= on. However, it is definitely simpler to do so than to explain the various = different interpretations and their differences, although doing so would be= more "right" in my opinion.

latro'a and I have a strict(er) view of Lojban in t= hat regard and believe than simxu1 must be a set, and that the simxu action= is fully pairwise. {mi ce do simxu lo ka cinba} therefore has the obvious = meaning. Likewise, {lo'i nanmu ce lo'i ninmu cu simxu lo ka cinba} = (I'm using ce as a cheap set addition because I can't be bothered t= o really look up how to do it) doesn't mean that all the men kissed all= the women and vice-versa; it means that each of the men kissed each of the= women and also *was kissed* by each of them. That would be my intended int= erpretation of that, for instance.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

=A0

>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegr= oups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.