Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:40818) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1T9mec-00071Y-Rx; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:42:43 -0700 Received: by daek18 with SMTP id k18sf1882801dae.16 for ; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:42:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=GXfSBNsS/iJ3qwiUOGjp2k7U3LpjT5OVbMVaAIuBKz4=; b=JwTeBXU0IdJ9ShLVHXNAIiZ6Uyj5V7WAyhu7c3vqJET4snYh5nUO+HnoFXrtVZZyoJ EUbjnV1CDRvY56yEYSQEZctQTLOn+DFGNZs481p7nE2OhwTx+t0BaRRB+fPavR/XYrOS m+uxvACwSq8RUeIKdwgWLNESE68BImvZCNIhY7kfCgmd9H0mo0mpBXGESxADFWM3EwF+ 81IPSPvIg+NJPVDQfTIUp4ACZu1cXNTUCwwIXwzpjRjJJ48Yd8s8fmSvFNTH2bJT93pC imXLOzlHQ9SkNANSaSqgNOEqJj01gwNFl5YciC4+aXfDxa/0rUFfpy2JwE/o7pUQHe41 Metg== Received: by 10.236.154.194 with SMTP id h42mr575972yhk.8.1346978551907; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:42:31 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.236.154.232 with SMTP id h68ls78971yhk.2.gmail; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.191.70 with SMTP id f46mr2190465yhn.44.1346978551090; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.191.70 with SMTP id f46mr2190463yhn.44.1346978551074; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yw0-f45.google.com (mail-yw0-f45.google.com [209.85.213.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l23si1022898yhk.6.2012.09.06.17.42.31 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.45; Received: by yhpp34 with SMTP id p34so575345yhp.32 for ; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:42:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.91.102 with SMTP id cd6mr5337985veb.58.1346978550711; Thu, 06 Sep 2012 17:42:30 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.178.106 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Sep 2012 17:42:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <369b1b83-0407-4ccf-aa59-89a5ffbaf473@googlegroups.com> <02c05dfc-7cc4-4ec6-a331-d915e2e9cdbf@s5g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> <07b7573a-45c9-44be-9d03-a74aa2b1127d@q20g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> <6bbe2f0e-9e7e-47e5-bbe1-0896c881dae9@p5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com> From: Jacob Errington Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 20:42:10 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Where should I use sets and where should I use masses? To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: nictytan@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=nictytan@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6044c00904ac04c911e271 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --047d7b6044c00904ac04c911e271 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 6 September 2012 19:57, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Jacob Errington > wrote: > > > > latro'a and I have a strict(er) view of Lojban in that regard and belie= ve > > than simxu1 must be a set, and that the simxu action is fully pairwise. > > But in what sense does that definition make Lojban more strict? Are > you saying that a predicate with the more vague meaning is simply not > a possible predicate in your strict version of Lojban? > Perhaps more "rigid" rather than "strict", but in general, it means less intuitive interpretation. To a beginner, {lo verba cu simlu lo ka kelci} is probably intuitively correct. Indeed, it is understandable, but it doesn't have that rigid correctness that I adhere to. Similarly, this overall rigidness involves dislike for {kakne lo nu broda} (should be {ka}) and {zmadu fi lo ka broda} (should be {ni}). Although I have little evidence that actually supports this, this interpretation probably makes things simpler to formally define in lojban. In my honest opinion, {lo verba cu simxu lo ka ce'u kelci kansa ce'u} is just nonsense, because it simply isn't distributive. I strongly dislike that {lo} can produce non-individuals and therefore use loi and lo'i accordingly (please don't supply the gi'e example; a "better" solution to that problem in my opinion is either a jai-like LAhE-cast or, if we aren't allowed to make up any new cmavo, to just use {ije} (and if the problem occurs inside an abstraction, it isn't my fault that there isn't an true afterthought bridi connective in the form of {vauJA} or some such)). Each individual of the description distributes into the predicate, but it *is not* true that each of the children {simxu lo ka kelci kansa}. In fact, if it's okay to just use definitely separate individuals like that, ignoring distribution completely, then {.i mi .e do simxu lo ka cenba} makes perfect sense, which again in my opinion, it most certainly should not, as {mi simxu lo ka cinba .ije do simxu lo ka cinba} is complete nonsense. > > > {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 to really look up how to do it) > > Set union is "jo'e" (but maybe that's not what you want either). "ce" > would create a set whose two members are each a set. > Right. I do know what the real effect of {ce} is in that situation, which is why I specified the laziness. It also happens to be why I have an issue with {ce}-strings. > > >doesn't > > mean that all the men kissed all the women and vice-versa; it means tha= t > > each of the men kissed each of the women and also *was kissed* by each = of > > them. That would be my intended interpretation of that, for instance. > > And also each men kissed and was kissed by each of the other men, > right? Otherwise you don't want the union there but something more > complicated. If you don't include the same sex kissing pairs, that > wouldn't match ianek's interpretation. > Uh, yes, of course. Too tired at this point I guess. Naturally it includes the same-sex kissing as well. That's exactly what I meant to say. .i mi'e la tsani mu'o > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "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@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den. > > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= 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@= googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den. --047d7b6044c00904ac04c911e271 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 6 September 2012 19:57, Jorge Llamb= =EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> latro'a and I have a strict(er) view of Lojban in that regard and = believe
> than simxu1 must be a set, and that the simxu action is fully pairwise= .

But in what sense does that definition make Lojban more strict? Are you saying that a predicate with the more vague meaning is simply not
a possible predicate in your strict version of Lojban?

Perhaps more "rigid" rather than "strict&quo= t;, but in general, it means less intuitive interpretation. To a beginner, = {lo verba cu simlu lo ka kelci} is probably intuitively correct. Indeed, it= is understandable, but it doesn't have that rigid correctness that I a= dhere to. Similarly, this overall rigidness involves dislike for {kakne lo = nu broda} (should be {ka}) and {zmadu fi lo ka broda} (should be {ni}). Alt= hough I have little evidence that actually supports this, this interpretati= on probably makes things simpler to formally define in lojban.

In my honest opinion, {lo verba cu simxu lo ka ce'u= kelci kansa ce'u} is just nonsense, because it simply isn't distri= butive. I strongly dislike that {lo} can produce non-individuals and theref= ore use loi and lo'i accordingly (please don't supply the gi'e = example; a "better" solution to that problem in my opinion is eit= her a jai-like LAhE-cast or, if we aren't allowed to make up any new cm= avo, to just use {ije} (and if the problem occurs inside an abstraction, it= isn't my fault that there isn't an true afterthought bridi connect= ive in the form of {vauJA} or some such)). Each individual of the descripti= on distributes into the predicate, but it *is not* true that each of the ch= ildren {simxu lo ka kelci kansa}. In fact, if it's okay to just use def= initely separate individuals like that, ignoring distribution completely, t= hen {.i mi .e do simxu lo ka cenba} makes perfect sense, which again in my = opinion, it most certainly should not, as {mi simxu lo ka cinba .ije do sim= xu lo ka cinba} is complete nonsense.
=A0

> {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 c= heap set
> addition because I can't be bothered to really look up how to do i= t)

Set union is "jo'e" (but maybe that's not what you = want either). "ce"
would create a set whose two members are each a set.
<= br>
Right. I do know what the real effect of {ce} is in that situ= ation, which is why I specified the laziness. It also happens to be why I h= ave an issue with {ce}-strings.
=A0

>doesn't
> mean that all the men kissed all the women and vice-versa; it means th= at
> each of the men kissed each of the women and also *was kissed* by each= of
> them. That would be my intended interpretation of that, for instance.<= br>
And also each men kissed and was kissed by each of the other men,
right? Otherwise you don't want the union there but something more
complicated. If you don't include the same sex kissing pairs, that
wouldn't match ianek's interpretation.

Uh, yes, of course. Too tired at this point I guess. Naturally it i= ncludes the same-sex kissing as well. That's exactly what I meant to sa= y.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o
=A0

--
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.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= 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@= googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= -beginners?hl=3Den.
--047d7b6044c00904ac04c911e271--