Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:50015)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhDrgof1BBoE_ImUTw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1RHKL6-0006Sa-6n; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:01:16 -0700
Received: by pzk4 with SMTP id 4sf4062981pzk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:01:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references
         :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key
         :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent: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;
        bh=UJdIutLOofxjWy0vezouQTvLAFnKE/gNgQR6f66ZzW4=;
        b=d4J2g3zKHiyGYLfSLWqapaetG/M0LLIgzOp14NLxBNpwpQjDRZuiF763aNIOLjB2Lq
         zhn22GCp463V+z48Wj93y/IRhdGBL0H3ZadCVZSZ7mVkb1CUkHs+BlROlxh3i+BOpoyY
         3y6JuuO9hdZskY7kBzEGCywxGpClAMimiesv4=
Received: by 10.68.157.133 with SMTP id wm5mr2989268pbb.10.1319223659034;
        Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:00:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.29.130 with SMTP id k2ls13236561pbh.1.gmail; Fri, 21 Oct
 2011 12:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.22.230 with SMTP id h6mr12637369pbf.4.1319223658118;
        Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:00:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.22.230 with SMTP id h6mr12637332pbf.4.1319223657327;
        Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id l3si2236902pbd.0.2011.10.21.12.00.57
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19;
Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4])
	by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p9LJ0uYo010834
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 19:00:56 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1RHKKu-0001JU-0k
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:00:56 -0400
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 15:00:56 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Message-ID: <20111021190055.GF28229@gonzales>
References: <20111018044730.GB30548@gonzales>
 <20111018054425.GP21114@gonzales>
 <20111019184449.GC5010@gonzales>
 <1319076660.7053.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <20111020024132.GH5010@gonzales>
 <E7E854FB-384D-4137-B4C4-F200D8FAFFB7@yahoo.com>
 <20111021001006.GA28229@gonzales>
 <30281CDD-EDDD-4C0C-B69E-C5CCF5DD0DA5@yahoo.com>
 <20111021141620.GD28229@gonzales>
 <1319211982.72395.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gneEPciiIl/aKvOT"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1319211982.72395.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: stuzi
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as
 permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /


--gneEPciiIl/aKvOT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Friday, 2011-10-21 at 08:46 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com=
>:

> If you want to say that flying dodos look silly, then your domain of disc=
ourse=20
> (at least in Lojban) contains flying dodos.  {lo} expressions always impl=
y the=20
> particular quantification on their defining predication.  Not that such t=
hings=20
> need exist, of course (part of the reason I use "particular" rather than=
=20
> "existential" for that quantifier).

What's particular quantification? I'm not familiar with the term.

> It is not clear that this is a different approach to tense and
> intensions, though it may be a different approach to domains of
> discourse (looking at Kamp again).

Discourse representation theory? Should I just read about that if I want
to understand you? I think I do have Kamp's paper on my harddrive.

> The properties these nonexistent things may have probably derive from
> the ones they have in worlds where they exist (not necessarily the
> same things, mind you, but the things at the other end of some sort of
> projection)

Not really with you here.

Well, it seems that I didn't understand correctly your solution. I don't
see much wrong with the solution I understood you as proposing... but
I'm happy to have multiple working solutions before having to pick one!

Martin

> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Fri, October 21, 2011 9:16:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plur=
al=20
> variable
>=20
> * Friday, 2011-10-21 at 05:51 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.=
com>:
>=20
> > I think there may be other possibilities.  For example, {lo broda} may
> > return a bunch, all of the subbunches in a partition of which broda in
> > sense i.
>=20
> OK, we can call that sense (is).
>=20
> ('s' being the roman numeral for 1/2, apparently)
>=20
> > So, the glorked (whence this word btw) have to be unicorns in
> > some world.  Why not in this one?
>=20
> Because there aren't any unicorns in it.
>=20
> How about if it had been "flying dodos look silly"? Would you want the
> flying dodos to be in this present world (by which I mean: to ca ca'a
> vofli je cipnrdodo)?
>=20
> > That is my intention; otherwise I have a mess of problems about cross-
> > worlds identity  and the meaning of predication (which, partly,
> > I suppose, is why you want to add {ka'e}).
>=20
> I don't see how you can coherently get around this mess.
>=20
> > Now, depending on the context, {lo pavelseljirna cu lazni} may or may
> > not take us to a world where unicorns exist, but the point is that it
> > does not have to; we can and do fold nonexistent unicorns -- items in
> > the extension of {pavelsejirna} -- into our current domain of
> > discourse, which depends on what we say, not on the facts.
>=20
> It seems you have some very different setup for handling tenses and
> intension than the one I've been assuming - in which there might well be
> entities in the domain of discourse which satisfy pavyseljirna_w for
> some worlds w, but they won't satisfy pavyseljirna_{w_0} for this world
> w_0, because no unicorns currently exist.
>=20
> Could you explain your setup? I don't see what it could be.
>=20
> Martin
>=20
> > On Oct 20, 2011, at 20:10, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >=20
> > > * Thursday, 2011-10-20 at 12:26 -0400 - John E. Clifford=20
> ><kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> > >=20
> > >> Now I am mor con used than before.  Why is there only one bunch off
> > >> people living in glass houses and why must they all exist at one time
> > >> / in one world, and why can't they?  I am unclear what restrictions
> > >> you are placing on worlds an domains.  I am also unclear as to what
> > >> you think the logical form of "People who live in glass houses should
> > >> install proper insulation" is.
> > >=20
> > > Hmm. Probably I'm making some assumption which you're not, leading to
> > > confusion. But I'm not sure what that assumption might be. So let me
> > > just express again the issue in different words:
> > >=20
> > > Ignoring all the more subtle issues we've been discussing, there are =
two
> > > basic possible bunch-theoretic meanings for {lo}. When applied to
> > > a unary predicate P, it either=20
> > > (i) returns a bunch X such that P(X)
> > > or (ii) returns a bunch X such that for every atom x below X, P(x).
> > >=20
> > > ("atom x below X" could also be written "individual x in the bunch X";
> > > I'll continue to use the 'atom' terminology because I think it best
> > > indicates that individuals aren't disjoint from bunches - individuals
> > > are just "singleton" bunches. I'll use the notation "x <=3D X" to mean
> > > that x is an atom below X (so lower case variables are "singular
> > > variables", i.e. are variables on the atoms sort))
> > >=20
> > > If we write {lo pavyseljirna cu lazni} to mean "unicorns are lazy"
> > > (which I believe is true - who ever heard of a pack-unicorn or
> > > a unicorn-plough?), the unary predicate in question is probably
> > > (slightly) more precisely expressed by {ka'e pavyseljirna}, and is:
> > >=20
> > > U(X) <=3D> "there exists a world w such that pavyseljirna(X) in w".
> > >=20
> > > Under (i) we get:
> > >=20
> > > {lo pavyseljirna cu lazni}
> > >    -> GL X:U(X). lazni(X)
> > >    =3D=3D "for a glorked bunch X such that U(X) holds, lazni(X) holds"
> > >=20
> > > whereas under (ii) we get:
> > >=20
> > > {lo pavyseljirna cu lazni}
> > >    -> GL X:(FA x <=3D X. U(x)). lazni(X)
> > >    =3D=3D "for a glorked bunch X such that U(x) holds for every atom
> > >    x below X, lazni(X) holds" .
> > >=20
> > > Substituting in the definition of U and using distributivity, under (=
i) we=20
> >get:
> > >=20
> > > GL X:(EX w. pavyseljirna_w(X)). lazni(X)
> > >    =3D=3D GL X:(EX w. FA x <=3D X. pavyseljirna_w(x)). lazni(X)
> > >    =3D=3D "for a glorked bunch X such that for some world every atom =
below
> > >    X is a unicorn, X is lazy"
> > >=20
> > > while under (ii) we get:
> > >=20
> > > GL X:(FA x <=3D X. EX w. pavyseljirna_w(x)). lazni(X)
> > >    =3D=3D "for a glorked X such that for every atom below X there is
> > >    a world in which it is a unicorn, X is lazy" .
> > >=20
> > > So the (ii) case is the one we want, if we want to get at the sense of
> > > the english "unicorns are lazy".
> > >=20
> > > Did that make any more sense?
> > >=20
> > > Martin
> > >=20
> > >> On Oct 19, 2011, at 22:41, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > >>=20
> > >>> * Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 19:11 -0700 - John E Clifford=20
> ><kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> > >>>=20
> > >>>> U\I'm not going to worry about {loi} etc. until I am sutre about {=
lo} and=20
> >then=20
> >
> > >>>> see what is lefyt over that needs dealing with. {lo cipnrdodo) ref=
ers
> > >>>> to all the dodos there ever were (suppose that is right for this
> > >>>> context), all of which are thus in the domain of discourse and als=
o in
> > >>>> the extension of {cipnrdodo}.  What problem are you having; I just
> > >>>> don't see it?
> > >>>=20
> > >>> Hmm. So you'd want every dodo which ever lived to now cipnrdodo - e=
ven
> > >>> if it doesn't zasti, nevermind jmive?
> > >>>=20
> > >>> That might work for some cases, but what if we want to say "people =
in
> > >>> glass houses should install proper insulation"? Even if the people =
in
> > >>> question (who mostly don't zasti in this possible world, nevermind =
now)
> > >>> were to ca ca'a prenu, they surely couldn't ca ca'a nenri su'o blaci
> > >>> zdani; nor is there any other world in which they all do.
> > >>>=20
> > >>> So the bunch of them doesn't satisfy {prenu gi'e nenri su'o blaci
> > >>> zdani} - since there's only one bunch, we would need that the bunch
> > >>> satisfies this in some given world. It doesn't.
> > >>>=20
> > >>> But each atom (person, in this case) in the bunch does satisfy {pre=
nu
> > >>> gi'e nenri su'o blaci zdani}. So for {lo prenu poi nenri su'o blaci
> > >>> zdani} to get the bunch, we'd need the quantifier over worlds to go
> > >>> inside a quantifier over the bunch. The gadri seems the right place
> > >>> to specify this.
> > >>>=20
> > >>> Martin
> > >>>=20
> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----
> > >>>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> > >>>> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> > >>>> Sent: Wed, October 19, 2011 1:44:49 PM
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantifi=
ed=20
> >plural=20
> >
> > >>>> variable
> > >>>>=20
> > >>>> * Tuesday, 2011-10-18 at 01:44 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
> > >>>>=20
> > >>>>> * Tuesday, 2011-10-18 at 00:47 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org=
>:
> > >>>>>=20
> > >>>>>> * Monday, 2011-10-17 at 19:46 -0700 - John E Clifford=20
> > >>>> <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> > >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
> > >>>>>>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> > >>>>>>>> Maybe I finally understand what you mean with your "kinds =3D =
maximal
> > >>>>>>>> bunches" idea. Let's see.
> > >>>>>>>>=20
> > >>>>>>>> I've been implicitly assuming that in {lo broda}, the tense in=
side=20
> the
> > >>>>>>>> description is by default copied from outside it. So {mi ca ca=
'a=20
> nelci
> > >>>>>>>> lo pavyseljirna} =3D=3D {mi ca ca'a nelci lo ca ca'a pavyselji=
rna}, which=20
> >is
> > >>>>>>>> false if there are no unicorns.
> > >>>>>>>=20
> > >>>>>>> I suppose the tense (if there is one) is as contextual as every=
thing=20
> >else=20
> >
> > >>>>> about=20
> > >>>>>=20
> > >>>>>>> descriptions.  The same as the bridi surely is a good guess in =
general,=20
> >but=20
> >
> > >>>>> may=20
> > >>>>>=20
> > >>>>>>> be obviously wrong in other circumstances.  For example, in=20
> >generalities,=20
> >
> > >>>>> the=20
> > >>>>>=20
> > >>>>>>> tense (if that is the right notion) is probably past, present, =
future=20
> >and=20
> >
> > >>>>>>> possible.
> > >>>>>>=20
> > >>>>>> Right, so I think I do understand you.
> > >>>>>>=20
> > >>>>>> Does this work?
> > >>>>>=20
> > >>>>> But there's something of a problem: if the plural referent of {lo=
 broda}
> > >>>>> is meant to satisfy broda, what tense can give us e.g. all dodos =
ever?
> > >>>>> The plural referent of {lo pu cipnrdodo} must satisfy {pu cipnrdo=
do},
> > >>>>> i.e. must have satisfied {cipnrdodo} at some point in the past. B=
ut that
> > >>>>> means we're picking up some dodos all of which existed at the sam=
e time.
> > >>>>>=20
> > >>>>> So it seems we'd have to have the rule be that {ro lo broda cu br=
oda},
> > >>>>> rather than {lo broda cu broda}, for this to work.
> > >>>>=20
> > >>>> ...and then it might make sense to have {loi broda} be the same as=
 {lo},
> > >>>> except that the plural referent is required to broda (rather than =
the
> > >>>> atoms below it brodaing). So while {lo pu cipnrdodo} could get the=
 bunch
> > >>>> (aka plurality) of all dodos ever, {loi pu cipnrdodo} would have t=
o get
> > >>>> a bunch all of which cipnrdodod at the same past time (which might=
 imply
> > >>>> that they were all alive at the same time, or if dead at least not=
 too
> > >>>> far decomposed...).
> > >>>>=20
> > >>>> So this contains some of the essence of the historical meaning of =
{loi},
> > >>>> and is usefully distinct from (the understanding under discussion =
of)
> > >>>> {lo}.
> > >>>>=20
> > >>>> Martin
> > >>>>=20
> > >>>> --=20
> > >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google=
 Groups=20
> >"lojban" group.
> > >>>> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> > >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20
> >lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > >>>> For more options, visit this group at=20
> >http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
> > >>=20
> > >> --=20
> > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google G=
roups=20
> >"lojban" group.
> > >> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20
> >lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > >> For more options, visit this group at=20
> >http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
> > >>=20
> >=20
> > --=20
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou=
ps=20
> >"lojban" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to=20
> >lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at=20
> >http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
> >=20
>=20
> --=20
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups=
 "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegr=
oups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb=
an?hl=3Den.

--gneEPciiIl/aKvOT
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk6hwWcACgkQULC7OLX7LNZLiACffsc3wZLoxlsDDhiLoOOJuGrO
bTUAoKLTiEDZTo46r+KqpDpzs66BzSjT
=GagV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--gneEPciiIl/aKvOT--