From lojban-beginners+bncCML0xpmUARDZ947rBBoEXSXLaA@googlegroups.com Tue Feb 22 05:36:43 2011 Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PrsPv-0003Ts-2g; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:36:43 -0800 Received: by pzk26 with SMTP id 26sf480024pzk.16 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:36:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=KqwC22W2xkE8XLKLGZNCKDmIzsMLIbPgUUQ7pRYD7m4=; b=s1F6F8a1ytYHALBnZ2M3jJMGMqoVwGa4X/ACjma9EaJ/TkItGVw3QoMo3M7NUNfvA9 uOPr9ej3nE91BmjdGaixg80aT3sPHpCcJXpGQ3UhMAD0aXfq7MxQ9aqkktBrq53yBp+o 8U2x8S9Jx2G/skOizgDX2crSr1fETCgixpbtM= 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-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=6NrdxjLGz6PfeUGdKl+T8kr7VniJMuIu6X50VJbWT4JlOUN7ZrcC3bbLys9Ykwbtou GcApFowZtlvmO7iWF3jatwPylbfN7UruB5oJO/sHHD6VuUZUjKMf0bEsCnd6c97kYxpc 9N3ssJecspzl8+0UHdrIetwMFnxnK+WcLkQSo= Received: by 10.142.139.3 with SMTP id m3mr135005wfd.4.1298381785124; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:36:25 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.143.178.9 with SMTP id f9ls3512465wfp.0.p; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:36:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.173.5 with SMTP id v5mr540599wfe.61.1298381783966; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:36:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.173.5 with SMTP id v5mr540598wfe.61.1298381783902; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:36:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-px0-f171.google.com (mail-px0-f171.google.com [209.85.212.171]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 28si6816911wfb.6.2011.02.22.05.36.23 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:36:23 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.171; Received: by pxi7 with SMTP id 7so624299pxi.30 for ; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:36:23 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.242.2 with SMTP id p2mr2165868wfh.372.1298381783697; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:36:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.53.5 with HTTP; Tue, 22 Feb 2011 05:36:23 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <201102171403.40004.phma@phma.optus.nu> <201102171622.02738.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2011 08:36:23 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Question about {roda} From: Ian Johnson To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.171 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) 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: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd14b04000b6a049cdf1147 --000e0cd14b04000b6a049cdf1147 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Except that domain of discourse in general is quite explicit in logical or mathematical contexts. That is to say, you walk into (for example) an undergrad real analysis class and it is usually very explicit that that "fo= r all x" means "for all x in R". When it isn't, it's always specified in one way or another; the original statement of the theorem you're discussing may be talking about a domain that is a compact interval, and then the "for all x" quantifies over that interval, since you're handing x to f. In more general contexts, such as set theory, "for all x" quantifies over literally everything that the theory causes to exist, such as the entire collection o= f sets. These things don't bring up Lindar's issue of "which everything are we talking about?". If they did, mathematicians and logicians would be doing something else to alleviate it. By contrast, in a general conversation, that universe of discourse is perhaps not some absolute one, but it is a very very large one, because a conversation could take twists and turns very very easily by comparison wit= h a real analysis class. Thus the universe of discourse has to be an appropriate size to compensate for that. I really think it isn't so hard, if you want to be lazy, to simply use {ro srana} and {da poi srana} (I forget, would {lo srana} suffice?). If you nee= d a binding, {ro da poi srana} or {ro srana goi ko'a} work too. mu'o mi'e .latros. 2011/2/21 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Luke Bergen > wrote: > > My only concern is that if {roda} has an implicite {poi co'e} then I'm > not > > sure what you could put in for that {co'e} that gets you back to the > strong > > EVERYTHING that logicians want. > > What exactly is this strong everything? In Logic there is always a > domain of discourse for the variables to take their values from. See > for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantification > > "In logic, quantification is the binding of a variable ranging over a > domain of discourse. The variable thereby becomes bound by an operator > called a quantifier." > > Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse > > "In the formal sciences, the domain of discourse, also called the > universe of discourse (or simply universe), is the set of entities > over which certain variables of interest in some formal treatment may > range. The domain of discourse is usually identified in the > preliminaries, so that there is no need in the further treatment to > specify each time the range of the relevant variables." > > You can't really do quantification without a domain of discourse. > > > lojban makes it very easy to narrow a concepts meaning (with tanru, wit= h > > poi/noi, with further bridi, etc...), but there are very few ways (none > that > > my fever-addled brain can think of at the moment anyway) that expand a > > concepts meaning. So if we take something as widely expanded as {ro} a= nd > > say "oh, but it's not really universal all the time" then what CAN you > say > > that is consistently universal? > > "ro" says that the bridi is true for ALL the values in the universe of > discourse that the variable bound by the quantifier can take. Of > course it's consistently universal. > > The problem seems to be that some people believe that there is some > absolute universal universe of discourse that includes all possible > universes of discourse or something like that, but there isn't. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > -- > 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. --000e0cd14b04000b6a049cdf1147 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Except that domain of discourse in general is quite explicit in logical or = mathematical contexts. That is to say, you walk into (for example) an under= grad real analysis class and it is usually very explicit that that "fo= r all x" means "for all x in R". When it isn't, it's= always specified in one way or another; the original statement of the theo= rem you're discussing may be talking about a domain that is a compact i= nterval, and then the "for all x" quantifies over that interval, = since you're handing x to f. In more general contexts, such as set theo= ry, "for all x" quantifies over literally everything that the the= ory causes to exist, such as the entire collection of sets.

These things don't bring up Lindar's issue of "which every= thing are we talking about?". If they did, mathematicians and logician= s would be doing something else to alleviate it.

By contrast, in a = general conversation, that universe of discourse is perhaps not some absolu= te one, but it is a very very large one, because a conversation could take = twists and turns very very easily by comparison with a real analysis class.= Thus the universe of discourse has to be an appropriate size to compensate= for that.

I really think it isn't so hard, if you want to be lazy, to simply = use {ro srana} and {da poi srana} (I forget, would {lo srana} suffice?). If= you need a binding, {ro da poi srana} or {ro srana goi ko'a} work too.=

mu'o mi'e .latros.

2011/2/21 = Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 4:14 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> My only concern is that if {roda} has an implicite {poi co'e} then= I'm not
> sure what you could put in for that {co'e} that gets you back to t= he strong
> EVERYTHING that logicians want.

What exactly is this strong everything? In Logic there is always a domain of discourse for the variables to take their values from. See
for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantification

"In logic, quantification is the binding of a variable ranging over a<= br> domain of discourse. The variable thereby becomes bound by an operator
called a quantifier."

Or: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_of_discourse

"In the formal sciences, the domain of discourse, also called the
universe of discourse (or simply universe), is the set of entities
over which certain variables of interest in some formal treatment may
range. The domain of discourse is usually identified in the
preliminaries, so that there is no need in the further treatment to
specify each time the range of the relevant variables."

You can't really do quantification without a domain of discourse.

> lojban makes it very easy to narrow a concepts meaning (with tanru, wi= th
> poi/noi, with further bridi, etc...), but there are very few ways (non= e that
> my fever-addled brain can think of at the moment anyway) that expand a=
> concepts meaning. =A0So if we take something as widely expanded as {ro= } and
> say "oh, but it's not really universal all the time" the= n what CAN you say
> that is consistently universal?

"ro" says that the bridi is true for ALL the values in the = universe of
discourse that the variable bound by the quantifier can take. Of
course it's consistently universal.

The problem seems to be that some people believe that there is some
absolute universal universe of discourse that includes all possible
universes of discourse or something like that, but there isn't.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
You received this message because y= ou are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.<= br> 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.
--000e0cd14b04000b6a049cdf1147--