Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]:47223) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RQ7JJ-0008Oi-0o; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:55:42 -0800 Received: by vws16 with SMTP id 16sf4977832vws.16 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:55:30 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=rJkhzMNIVMcjGQptoz4Q963d8oQ2gwxYtSK+ThWYCbE=; b=jGgvn7eG8xBJ8bTlj53zCCG2tJmTh9Qj/HwKJd+Q4d+P6MVvCk4LHSG2VVe2eY6X2J mw6ms2QdVTyxdMtVwhuBDqAoXroXDbfYqo3cz3218JXbdnCMQEg0EF6PPpgdeZndNGQv zP4KEVl9ohclJ3rQed9Ngs1ILMEEx1P2XvGg4= Received: by 10.52.179.3 with SMTP id dc3mr1726084vdc.12.1321318527764; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:55:27 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.35.17 with SMTP id i17ls4207ybi.1.gmail; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:55:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.119.3 with SMTP id r3mr4481860anc.17.1321318526749; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:55:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.119.3 with SMTP id r3mr4481858anc.17.1321318526715; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:55:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gx0-f181.google.com (mail-gx0-f181.google.com [209.85.161.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o24si2964915ybh.1.2011.11.14.16.55.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:55:26 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.181; Received: by ggnv2 with SMTP id v2so8274519ggn.12 for ; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:55:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.15.232 with SMTP id a8mr54471774pbd.129.1321318526356; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:55:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.224.8 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:55:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <8A2121A2-7549-4123-8557-EEE300254097@yahoo.com> References: <20111112173901.GC2702@gonzales> <1321289156.24832.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <8A2121A2-7549-4123-8557-EEE300254097@yahoo.com> Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 19:55:26 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like From: maikxlx To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: maikxlx@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of maikxlx@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=maikxlx@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51f9965660cd704b1bb71b1 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / --bcaec51f9965660cd704b1bb71b1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ah, you jarred my memory. Having studied Bunt, I think that I can make some sense of your earlier writings about Le=C5=9Bniewskian sets (L-sets) a= nd Cantorian or classical sets (C-sets) e.g. http://pckipo.blogspot.com/2009/09/c-sets-and-l-sets-draft.html I take it that your "bunches" are basically L-sets as there described then? I am not quite sure how L-sets work differently than C-sets, other than they can't be nested and {a} =3D a. C-sets clearly handle individuals efficiently and masses poorly; how do L-sets handle masses and individuals? Or is there a difference? FWIW, Bunt's "ensembles" which I mentioned are a bit different than your L-sets. Ensembles are a set-like structure in which mass is the basic concept, and atomic individuals are derived or secondary. Any non-empty ensemble may contain or atomic members (essentially a count ensemble), or for lack of a better word non-atomic "stuff" (mass ensemble). It could also contain both atoms and non-atomic stuff. Count and mass ensembles may combine in predicate relationships freely as in "The five rings were gold". So they seem pretty useful for capturing human language semantics. On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:16 PM, John E. Clifford wro= te: > Hmmm! Nice case! Of course, some first transistor must have been > invented that all the others copied and improved upon, but that doesn't > really dodge your point. At the moment, I don't know what to suggest, > except to hope that Lojban still has a word for kinds. Bunches are, > inter alia, Lesniewski's wholes (but xorxes doesn't like this kind of > objectifying, preferring plural reference, which works the same way > formally). I don't take 1a to be about kinds, but just about some > unspecified bunch of lions (at least in Lojban, lo cinfo). Kinds don't > seem to be the sort of things that ruin gardens, though their exemplars > may. The factual situation, as far as transistors, etc. are concerned, i= s > about genealogy, all transistors descend from something invented by > Shockley. But that is at least as hard to express as types, so I wait a > while on it. > > Sent from my iPad > > On Nov 14, 2011, at 2:24 PM, maikxlx wrote: > > I can understand the appeal of your concept of bunches -- if I understand > them correctly as being something like subsets of the extensions consisti= ng > of mundanes/atoms (perhaps generalized to something like Bunt's ensemble, > derivative of Le=C5=9Bniewski 's mereology, to cover masses). E.g.: > > - (1a) Lions are ruining my garden. > > - (1b) There exist some lions that are ruining my garden. > > where (1a) invokes a kind and (1b) invokes a bunch or somesuch, and yet > both sentences seem to have the same truth conditions or almost the same. > > But yesterday as I was reading random online materials (this one - > > http://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h2816i3x/Talks/GenericitySeattle.ho.pdf ), > I found what I think is a good bunch-resisting, kind-example: > > - (2a) Transistors were invented by Shockley. > > One can't get the same result by referring to any bunch: > > - (2b) *There exist some transistors that were invented by Shockley. > > Nor does taking the biggest possible bunch of transistors help: > > - (2c) *All transistors were invented by Shockley. > > It seems that though transistors as a kind of thing were invented, no > mundane transistor nor any extension, ensemble, or bunch of them was > invented. In (2a) there does seem to be some sort of "transistor kind" > (dare I say "form") above the mundane, even taking into consideration the > possible worlds that Montague would have in his model. > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:45 AM, John E Clifford < > kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Here we have the advantage of taking kinds and the like as bunches > (without > > ontological commitment of things called "bunches"): {su'o lo stuci) has > > essentially the same result under either interpretation, a subbunch of = lo > > stuci. It may, of course, not correspond to the bunches put in as kind= s > of > > teachers, but it produces a kind of its own. Of course, there remains > the issue > > of how this bunch talks to all the students, but, as I have noted > elsewhere, it > > all works out to there being some teachers (mundanes) who talk to all t= he > > students, even if no one teacher does. > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > > From: Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas < jjllambias@gmail.com> > > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Sun, November 13, 2011 7:10:17 AM > > Subject: Re: [lojban] Lions and levels and the like > > > > On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 2:39 PM, Martin Bays < > mbays@sdf.org> wrote: > > > > > > What I mean by this (i.e. by "really"): if B hears A say {su'o ctuca = cu > > > tavla ro le tadni}, and B wants to understand what A means to say abo= ut > > > actual teachers and actual students, and if {ctuca} and {tadni} do no= t > > > specify levels, then B has to guess which levels A intends them to > refer > > > to. If, for example, B guesses that A is talking about kinds of teach= er > > > and about actual students, all B can deduce about actual teachers and > > > students is that every student was talked to by some teacher. > > > > You have some hidden assumptions there, for example that there are > > actual teachers of the kind that talks to every student. > > > > And B can deduce more: that there is some kind of teacher such that > > every student was talked to by some teacher of that kind. > > > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou= ps > > "lojban" group. > > To post to this group, send email to > lojban@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > For more options, visit this group at > > > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > > > -- > > 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@googlegroups.co= m > . > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den. > --=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@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --bcaec51f9965660cd704b1bb71b1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ah, you jarred my memory.=C2=A0 Having studied Bunt, I think that I can mak= e some sense of your earlier writings about Le=C5=9Bniewskian sets (L-sets)= and Cantorian or classical sets (C-sets) e.g. http://pckipo.blogspot.com/= 2009/09/c-sets-and-l-sets-draft.html=C2=A0 I take it that your "bu= nches" are basically L-sets as there described then?=C2=A0 I am not qu= ite sure how L-sets work differently than C-sets, other than they can't= be nested and {a} =3D a.=C2=A0 C-sets clearly handle individuals efficient= ly and masses poorly; how do L-sets handle masses and individuals?=C2=A0 Or= is there a difference?

FWIW, Bunt's "ensembles" which I mentioned are a bit diff= erent than your L-sets.=C2=A0 Ensembles are a set-like structure in which m= ass is the basic concept, and atomic individuals are derived or secondary.= =C2=A0 Any non-empty ensemble may contain or atomic members (essentially a = count ensemble), or for lack of a better word non-atomic "stuff" = (mass ensemble).=C2=A0 It could also contain both atoms and non-atomic stuf= f.=C2=A0 Count and mass ensembles may combine in predicate relationships fr= eely as in "The five rings were gold".=C2=A0 So they seem pretty = useful for capturing human language semantics.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 4:16 PM, John E. Cli= fford <kali9pu= tra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hmmm! =C2=A0Nice case! =C2=A0Of course, some = first transistor must have been invented that all the others copied and imp= roved upon, but that doesn't really dodge your point. =C2=A0At the mome= nt, I don't know what to suggest, except to hope that Lojban still has<= span>=C2=A0a word for kinds. =C2=A0Bunches are, inter alia, Lesniewski'= s wholes (but xorxes doesn't like this kind of objectifying, preferring= plural reference, which works the same way formally). =C2=A0I don't ta= ke 1a to be about kinds, but just about =C2=A0 =C2=A0 some unspecified bunc= h of lions (at least in Lojban, lo cinfo). =C2=A0Kinds don't seem to be= the sort of things that ruin gardens, though their exemplars may. =C2=A0Th= e factual situation, as far as transistors, etc. are concerned, is about ge= nealogy, all transistors descend from something invented by Shockley. =C2= =A0But that is at least as hard to express as types, so I wait a while on i= t.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 14, 2011, at 2:24 PM, maikxlx <maikxlx@gmail.com> wrot= e:

I can understand the ap= peal of your concept of bunches -- if I understand them correctly as being = something like subsets of the extensions consisting of mundanes/atoms (perh= aps generalized to something like Bunt's ensemble, derivative of Le=C5= =9Bniewski 's mereology, to cover masses). =C2=A0=C2=A0 E.g.:

- (1a) Lions are ruining my garden.=C2=A0

- (1b) There exist so= me lions that are ruining my garden.

where (1a) invokes a kind and (= 1b) invokes a bunch or somesuch, and yet both sentences seem to have the sa= me truth conditions or almost the same.

But yesterday as I was reading random online materials (this one - http://amor.cms.hu-be= rlin.de/~h2816i3x/Talks/GenericitySeattle.ho.pdf ), I found what I thin= k is a good bunch-resisting, kind-example:

- (2a) Transistors were invented by Shockley.

One can't get = the same result by referring to any bunch:

- (2b) *There exist some = transistors that were invented by Shockley.

Nor does taking the big= gest possible bunch of transistors help:

- (2c) *All transistors were invented by Shockley.

It seems that though transistors as a kind of thing were invented, no m= undane transistor nor any extension, ensemble, or bunch of them was invente= d.=C2=A0 In (2a) there does seem to be some sort of "transistor kind&q= uot; (dare I say "form") above the mundane, even taking into cons= ideration the possible worlds that Montague would have in his model.

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 11:45 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
= > Here we have the advantage of taking kinds and the like as bunches (wi= thout
> ontological commitment of things called "bunches"): {su'= o lo stuci) has
> essentially the same result under either interpreta= tion, a subbunch of lo
> stuci. =C2=A0It may, of course, not correspo= nd to the bunches put in as kinds of
> teachers, but it produces a kind of its own. =C2=A0Of course, there re= mains the issue
> of how this bunch talks to all the students, but, a= s I have noted elsewhere, it
> all works out to there being some teac= hers (mundanes) who talk to all the
> students, even if no one teacher does.
>
>
>
>= ----- Original Message ----
> From: Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
> To: <= a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegr= oups.com
> Sent: Sun, November 13, 2011 7:10:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] = Lions and levels and the like
>
> On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 2:39 = PM, Martin Bays <= mbays@sdf.org> wr= ote:
> >
> > What I mean by this (i.e. by "really"): if= B hears A say {su'o ctuca cu
> > tavla ro le tadni}, and B wa= nts to understand what A means to say about
> > actual teachers an= d actual students, and if {ctuca} and {tadni} do not
> > specify levels, then B has to guess which levels A intends them t= o refer
> > to. If, for example, B guesses that A is talking about= kinds of teacher
> > and about actual students, all B can deduce = about actual teachers and
> > students is that every student was talked to by some teacher.
= >
> You have some hidden assumptions there, for example that there= are
> actual teachers of the kind that talks to every student.
>
> And B can deduce more: that there is some kind of teacher such= that
> every student was talked to by some teacher of that kind.
= >
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
> --
> You receiv= ed this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to= lojban@googlegroups.c= om.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubsc= ribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.goog= le.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribe= d 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@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/g= roup/lojban?hl=3Den.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups= .com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--bcaec51f9965660cd704b1bb71b1--