From pille@mac.com Fri Feb 14 06:13:03 2003 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:13:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.87]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18jgaN-0000aF-00 for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:13:03 -0800 Received: from asmtp02.mac.com (asmtp02-qfe3 [10.13.10.66]) by smtpout.mac.com (Xserve/MantshX 2.0) with ESMTP id h1EED2dD004870 for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:13:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from mac.com ([80.142.149.118]) by asmtp02.mac.com (Netscape Messaging Server 4.15) with ESMTP id HAAY5P00.EOT for ; Fri, 14 Feb 2003 06:13:01 -0800 Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2003 15:13:16 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v551) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: [lojban-beginners] closed systems error From: Jan Pilgenroeder To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <762B764B-4026-11D7-B6CD-000393B76BE4@mac.com> X-archive-position: 117 X-Approved-By: pille@mac.com X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: pille@mac.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners coi xorxes after a somewhat sleepless night I figured that you were right about something being wrong with my sentence about closed systems. But the problem is not the X3 place structure. I repeat the definition of the operation again: .ica'e lu luman zei nunzga li'u cu brivla le si'o gasnu le logji nunsei gi'e snigau fi le se nunsei kei le zgana se zukte ku ce'o lo se nunsei ku ce'o lo te nunsei ku ce'o le zgana poi ciste fi pisu'o lo'i luman zei nunzga vau la lojban (I got rid of the nu'o, the sumti are optional anyway, so I don't need it. I also made sure I talk about systems of subsets of luman zei nunzga) .ica'e brode cei luman zei nunzga Now the bad sentence again: .ije'unai la brode ganlo ciste goi ko'a cu velbo'e da poi ko'a ka'e velbo'e ke'a ku'o de poi ko'a na ka'e velbo'e ke'a And you are right. The sentence implies: .i velbo'e de poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'a .iva'i ka'e velbo'e de .ije na ka'e velbo'e de The system gets in trouble when it tries to do that. But it can observe itself getting in trouble: .i velbo'e le velbo'e be de poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'a That's actually what happened when you looked at my sentence and complained about it :-) So now we can say: .i le velbo'e goi ko'a cu velbo'e le velbo'e be da poi velbo'e ke'a ku'o le velbo'e be de poi na ka'e velbo'e ke'a The selbo'e of this observation is something the system can deal with. The terbo'e can be observed, but the system gets to a point where it gets in trouble (or rather: may get in trouble when it gets caught). This example also shows that the system is fine as long as it only observes its observations: "brode le brode le brode" always works. And the fact that "co'e le co'e le co'e " works too suggests: .i tu'a zo co'e cu klesi lo'i velbo'e .iva'i la'e lu lo broda li'u cu se luman zei nunzga .ija'o ka'e djuno le du'u go'i kei po'o lo munje In my screwed up example I jammed something into the marked space of an observation of the system. The system was not really closed anymore. That's what was causing the trouble. The system can deal with this irritation by building observations around it. It's somewhat like an oyster building a pearl around something it can't digest or get rid of ;-) mu'omi'e .ian. -- Jan Pilgenroeder Theaterstr. 59 52062 Aachen