Careful: "imagi= nary" is often contrasted with "existent", so that is not the relevant dist= inction. Unicorns, when in the UD, are also in the extension of "imag= inary". The real problem is that I can search for things that are not= even in the UD (impossible things may be a case, but I don't want to exclu= de them prematurely). Also, imaginary things are not in your mind, at= least as aplace to look fro them (but this gets into the messiness of (rea= l) epistemology and representation theory, which seems wise to avoid now).&= nbsp;
I'm not clear howsets solves working with non-existent things -- = even C-sets don't seem to help.

From: Felipe Gon=E7alves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
<= b>Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2= 013 6:58 PM
Subject: R= e: [lojban] searching

I am pretty sure that {lo broda cu brode} implies {da poi broda cu brode}(except that {da} should be a plural variable). In particular, {lo broda}=
presupposes {da broda}.

When I say {mi sisku lo crino}, there is= no green thing, and no green bunch
of things out of which I can create = meaning for the "looking for" predicate.
You could argue that I am looki= ng for something that is among all the green
things, {mi sisku lo ka me = lo [ro] crino}, which is ok, except for the problem
with non-existent ob= jects. If I say {mi sisku [lo ka me] lo pavyseljirna}, I am
making a com= mitment with the belief that da pavyseljirna. It can't be just
an imagin= ary unicorn, because I am not looking for a unicorn on my mind.
You can = also consider contradictory properties. If you said {mi sisku lo blanu
p= oi na blanu}, I would reply {na'i go'i}! ({mi sisku lo ka blanu gi'e na bla= nu}
is fine, though).

The non-existence thing could be solved by working with sets, but it is
logically cleaner to work direct= ly with their defining properties.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

On= 8 January 2013 21:20, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
> la latro'= a cu cusku di'e
>>
>> It's not that it doesn't, only that= it needn't. Specifying explicitly
>>
>> that it doesn't = isn't possible.
>
>
> Why not?
>
>
>>= ; va'i xorlo doesn't really "fix" this per
>> se, in that under th= e modified "x1 looks for x2 at x3" definition, you
>> can't explic= itly say "I'm looking for a green thing, I don't care which
>> one= ", at least not without introducing another bridi.
>
>
> = Why? What is the problem with "mi sisku lo crino"? This is exactly the kind=
> of thing xorlo fixes.
>
>
> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
>
> --
> You received this message because you a= re 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, visi= t this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
&= gt;

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to t= he Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, se= nd email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<= /a>.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/gro= up/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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--1789658926-616357216-1357700455=:69954--