From lojban-beginners+bncCOib25n_BhC4_ZbrBBoEgnS1qw@googlegroups.com Wed Feb 23 18:13:30 2011 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PsQhq-0006Vn-Ka; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:13:30 -0800 Received: by yxd5 with SMTP id 5sf37729yxd.16 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:13:20 -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:sender :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :x-google-group-id:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=sZdNM5p/rKPoyUNZnYA13Yev1zIoHY0TIlKJX4V/5uo=; b=cygij2hpVhl4WnlKlXmKAwhXDDMh9QglJzoRouhadA+7JCVqKfOV0HnF+fayO4JswP xbglVspw2p9W4vytBxwUNiOy0d//47+Po6cWILhEekYhFvMHKR4TumSaPA8tpKILzjGf l8OyabGS9wIXgUjka4aWMD4mfKmtEoUYLNIM4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:x-google-group-id:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=HGTMSULUHQ1UfEHTM9+03P6wrHLEAzQTUj8Yg7Gw3Hv8lQhQcajAafvRdWShzRBk7A LUYyJH5Bt33bC4ZtZVDylDHDhLJS34VpOeSKaHTrgMQ+u8z8C2VsOE0xUyk9blWRb5cd htOpjKt25acGwL8+dbqjSKBirjcJudNdNmweU= Received: by 10.91.162.3 with SMTP id p3mr101873ago.12.1298513592623; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:13:12 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.239.3 with SMTP id m3ls6138anh.0.p; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:13:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.101.132.18 with SMTP id j18mr96571ann.49.1298513591951; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:13:11 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.101.132.18 with SMTP id j18mr96570ann.49.1298513591914; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:13:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f170.google.com (mail-gx0-f170.google.com [209.85.161.170]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c13si2755673anc.7.2011.02.23.18.13.11 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:13:11 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.170; Received: by gxk1 with SMTP id 1so38899gxk.29 for ; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:13:11 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.100.197.3 with SMTP id u3mr140558anf.89.1298513591243; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:13:11 -0800 (PST) Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.93.16 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Feb 2011 18:13:11 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 21:13:11 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] A seemingly simple sentence with layered complexity From: ".arpis." To: "David Gowers (kampu)" <00ai99@gmail.com> Cc: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com, tatoeba-lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.170 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rpglover64@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Google-Group-Id: 94518172 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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e64135bc5792f1049cfdc1b2 --0016e64135bc5792f1049cfdc1b2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:47 PM, David Gowers (kampu) <00ai99@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Alex Rozenshteyn > wrote: > > A square has four equal sides. > > > > {lo kubykurfa se pagbu vo dunli korbi} is an almost literal translation, > but > > I feel like it's unacceptably vague for lojban. > {lo kubykerfa *ku* se pagbu vo dunli korbi} > for a start > oi se'i that was a transcription error. I had it right in another tab, but I mistyped here. > > possibly 'ka kubli fi li vo' amounts to 'four equal sides'.. all {lo > kubli} have equal sides. > > I suggest something like {lo kubykurfa ku ckaji lo ka kubli li re li vo}. > When translating from English (or French, or..), you need to be wary > of words like 'has', even if you think you know what they mean in the > context. In this case, it seems to have prompted you to think as if > 'having four equal sides' is the *only* important property of a > square. > (if you really think that, you could use {pavykai}) > > > > > Starting with choices of translations for the word "square": {kurfa} is > not > > precise enough, as it can mean rectangle, {kubykurfa} could mean cube, > but > > not unless context or an explicit dimension place indicate it, and > > {pitkubykurfa} is necessarily planar. > > > > ta'o {sa'orkurfa} seems like a horrible word to mean rhombus/diamond, > since > > {kurfa} has right angles but not necessarily equal sides, and a rhombus > has > > necessarily equal sides but not necessarily right angles. > > > > ta'onai {kubykurfa} seems to be a good choice to mean "square". > > > > The English "has" means "is made up of", so {pagbu} and {gunma} seem to > be > > the reasonable choices. I can't figure out which one is more > appropriate. > > ji'a, both seem to lack the implication that the parts are all there is, > > va'i we're not talking about a hexagon with side-lengths 4,4,4,4,2,1 > (maybe > > {vo broda noi dunli}). > > do you think it's genuinely true that a square is 'only' made up of four > sides? > personally I suggest that a square is a hypercube of dimension 2. > No, but it is made up of only 4 sides, whose only relation to each other is their equality. > > to'u the non-exclusivity of the definitions is probably intentional.. > even for most abstract concepts, we don't know exhaustively what they > are made up of. > My problem with this is that something whose potential lack of a property is key in its definition is defined in terms of something that necessarily has the property. > If you really want to say that in that manner, what about {rolpau}? > (I contemplated mulpau, which is a bit ambiguous; also arguably {lo > kubykerfa ku munje fi vo te kubli}; and {zo kubykurfa valsi lo kubli > be li re bei li vo} (my favorite)) > I don't like the one which defines the word square (as a translation; it's great standing alone), and the first one makes my brain twist. > > > > > > > Next, what should I use for "equal"? li'a I need {dunli}, but should I > use > > it as part of a tanru or in a subordinate clause in a tanru logical > > connection, or something else? > > > > Now for "sides", {korbi} and {mlana} seem to be the obvious choices, but > > neither seems quite right. > korbi seems okay to me-- it's just that equal length/angle relation > edges are implied. > > dunli zei korbi -> dunkoi? > Not directly related to this, but how do I claim that a bunch of variables are independent, vs that they are pairwise independent, vs that they are k-wise independent? > > David > -- mu'o mi'e .arpis. -- 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=en. --0016e64135bc5792f1049cfdc1b2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 8:47 PM, David G= owers (kampu) <00a= i99@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:11 AM, Alex Rozenshteyn <rpglover64@gmail.com> wrote:
> A square has four equal sides.
>
> {lo kubykurfa se pagbu vo dunli korbi} is an almost literal translatio= n, but
> I feel like it's unacceptably vague for lojban.
{lo kubykerfa *ku* se pagbu vo dunli korbi}
for a start

oi se'i that was a transcription e= rror.=A0 I had it right in another tab, but I mistyped here.

possibly 'ka kubli fi li vo' amounts to 'four equal sides'.= . all {lo
kubli} have equal sides.

I suggest something like {lo kubykurfa ku ckaji lo ka kubli li re li vo}. When translating from English (or French, or..), you need to be wary
of words like 'has', even if you think you know what they mean in t= he
context. In this case, it seems to have prompted you to think as if
'having four equal sides' is the *only* important property of a
square.
(if you really think that, you could use {pavykai})

>
> Starting with choices of translations for the word "square":= {kurfa} is not
> precise enough, as it can mean rectangle, {kubykurfa} could mean cube,= but
> not unless context or an explicit dimension place indicate it, and
> {pitkubykurfa} is necessarily planar.
>
> ta'o {sa'orkurfa} seems like a horrible word to mean rhombus/d= iamond, since
> {kurfa} has right angles but not necessarily equal sides, and a rhombu= s has
> necessarily equal sides but not necessarily right angles.
>
> ta'onai {kubykurfa} seems to be a good choice to mean "square= ".
>
> The English "has" means "is made up of", so {pagbu= } and {gunma} seem to be
> the reasonable choices.=A0 I can't figure out which one is more ap= propriate.
> ji'a, both seem to lack the implication that the parts are all the= re is,
> va'i we're not talking about a hexagon with side-lengths 4,4,4= ,4,2,1 (maybe
> {vo broda noi dunli}).

do you think it's genuinely true that a square is 'only' = made up of four sides?
personally I suggest that a square is a hypercube of dimension 2.

No, but it is made up of only 4 sides, whose only relation = to each other is their equality.

to'u the non-exclusivity of the definitions is probably intentional.. even for most abstract concepts, we don't know exhaustively what they are made up of.

My problem with this is that somet= hing whose potential lack of a property is key in its definition is defined= in terms of something that necessarily has the property.
=A0
If you really want to say that in that manner, what about {rolpau}?
(I contemplated mulpau, which is a bit ambiguous; also arguably {lo
kubykerfa ku munje fi vo te kubli}; and {zo kubykurfa valsi lo kubli
be li re bei li vo} (my favorite))

I don't lik= e the one which defines the word square (as a translation; it's great s= tanding alone), and the first one makes my brain twist.



>
> Next, what should I use for "equal"?=A0 li'a I need {dun= li}, but should I use
> it as part of a tanru or in a subordinate clause in a tanru logical > connection, or something else?
>
> Now for "sides", {korbi} and {mlana} seem to be the obvious = choices, but
> neither seems quite right.
korbi seems okay to me-- it's just that equal length/angle relati= on
edges are implied.

dunli zei korbi -> dunkoi?

Not directly related= to this, but how do I claim that a bunch of variables are independent, vs = that they are pairwise independent, vs that they are k-wise independent?

David



--
mu'o mi'= e .arpis.

--
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.
--0016e64135bc5792f1049cfdc1b2--