From lojban-beginners+bncCIici4jiChCPh7DeBBoEEdQYyg@googlegroups.com Mon Apr 19 00:17:55 2010 Received: from mail-pz0-f160.google.com ([209.85.222.160]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O3lEm-0006pE-PE; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:17:55 -0700 Received: by pzk32 with SMTP id 32sf1300031pzk.25 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:17:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:date:received:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=WzpEt6KfJIK5tiT5fPk2sG1GiRNgaupb9MBeb193brg=; b=FPdrVF/unWYamgsx1ISJLZhL6KHz+1yysZJUnjtM6UKQnKLmrU03UTODEWseOPbOG2 nk7UTpXAAZpGCaNT/k4HM45f3TdPbWXeem7ZDVZ6bWlaga5tfZjOS6o9NCMFlpXE51fh O2Vqb24hxX3eBs/2YlHDGhGEhgzXdFALzyhPI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-authentication-results :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=0LUpx8zpAyhXRF9JcxO5lr7ChONQIU0/k2dx+VYACt/6M49gJI2+zyRzFBumL1xDbh TU6ow6eEjyqg5VNVW3xB4qjDY8wl+fiSkt3N5t9XZdb3aSg4lOK36S93mt+fdSLt1HGw w1W7jJvSsjGGCi+lShQy3MQIkutWVyV8lws34= Received: by 10.115.100.23 with SMTP id c23mr343820wam.29.1271661455387; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:17:35 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.115.133.33 with SMTP id k33ls6134010wan.2.p; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.32.35 with SMTP id f35mr973154waf.19.1271661454463; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.32.35 with SMTP id f35mr973153waf.19.1271661454445; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:17:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pw0-f53.google.com (mail-pw0-f53.google.com [209.85.160.53]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 25si1143943pzk.4.2010.04.19.00.17.33; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:17:33 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of 00ai99@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.53; Received: by pwj10 with SMTP id 10so3175375pwj.12 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:17:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.43.19 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:17:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201004182357.39927.phma@phma.optus.nu> References: <09da87a4-5d57-45d1-8de6-489ad02aea24@z7g2000yqb.googlegroups.com> <201004182357.39927.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 16:47:33 +0930 Received: by 10.142.196.10 with SMTP id t10mr1817514wff.223.1271661453353; Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:17:33 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] About {mi cu facki di'e} From: David Gowers <00ai99@gmail.com> To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of 00ai99@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.53 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=00ai99@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: 00ai99@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: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > Btw, that should be "lo du'u se pelxu lo najnimre" or "lo du'u lo najnimre cu pelxu" autc. "pelxu" is intransitive. Whoops, yes. I originally had {lo du'u lo najnimre cu pelxu} and changed it to make the sentence structure simpler. > What about "lo du'u li re su'i re du li vo"? Well, that's fair enough. Things that are true by definition are completely true (ie. aren't subject to probability) That's also relevant to what xorxes said: > OK, but in that case, my statement that a du'u could be 100% false is as = close to the truth, or at least no further from the truth, than your own st= atement that no predicate can be 100% false or true. You can never have eno= ugh data to reach 100% certainty that no predicate can be 100% false or tru= e, right? :) I was wrong, because some predicates are true by definition or false by definition. For instance, 0 aka 0% and 1 aka 100% being invalid probability values is part of the current scientific definition of probability. The aforementioned predicate is a member of the subset of predicates which *do* have an absolute truth/falsehood value. --=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.