Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 07:29:49 -0800 (PST)
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <592497c0-5db5-420e-867f-8df1663eca27@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2d1U9Z=ZJ6sPaP++huPE+zE_dCGqXsrJ80jk4c5M+Y_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN2DD_E0QBcidfV+rp=N+rW1YeYtOanugo172BbgwFmswA2-SA@mail.gmail.com>
 <52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de>
 <5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com>
 <52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de>
 <a337096c-d88e-4387-a3d7-9642195e72af@googlegroups.com>
 <CAO7tK2fqC3RQkHDE5unLx-z+5U4VU2nWempwEnzDAcpyB810pw@mail.gmail.com>
 <372dd8f1-1920-4afa-8d11-aa55696982a0@googlegroups.com>
 <CAO7tK2f+f5tebxR-eH5UAx8mkOJAaZnM3Es2syyOdcMHZpn0qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <03555bbd-cc44-426f-94ee-65d557f2d301@googlegroups.com>
 <CAO7tK2d1U9Z=ZJ6sPaP++huPE+zE_dCGqXsrJ80jk4c5M+Y_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_1744_7234890.1391873389114"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_1744_7234890.1391873389114
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le samedi 8 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 09:28:10 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit :
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:03 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com <javascript:>=
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> My problem is, for example, how {lo no broda} can be meaningful if {lo=
=20
>> broda} implies {su'o da poi ke'a broda}.=20
>>
> To solve this problem, I need axioms for "plural constant".
>>
>>
> "lo no broda" is not very meaningful, except perhaps as a joke or if you=
=20
> want to be whimsical or paradoxical.=20
>
>

As long as PA of {lo PA broda} is defined as zilkancu_2, {lo no broda}=20
should be meaningful.
From that definition, I guess that PA should be a member of a countable=20
set, a rational number.
There is no other information about this PA, then it is natural that {lo no=
=20
broda} is meaningful.

Also from a practical point of view, it is better to give {lo no broda}=20
some reasonable meaning:

- lo xo prenu cu jmaji gi'e jukpa gi'e citka
 - no

Such a conversation is quite natural, and cannot be replaced by an outer=20
quantifier in a simple way because it involves collectivity and=20
distributivity. It should not be excluded from the language.


=20

> BTW, "lo broda cu brode" does not imply "su'o da poi broda cu brode", as=
=20
> you already pointed out, but it does imply "su'oi da poi broda cu brode".=
=20
> In other words "students are surrounding the building" does not necessari=
ly=20
> imply that at least one student is surrounding the building, but it does=
=20
> imply that some student or students are surrounding the building.
>
>

Yes, such a description is indeed what I need on the page of gadri.
I guess finally one axiom related to plural constant C of Lojban:
- F(C) {inaja} there is X such that F(X),
where X is plural variable.

I became now aware of the reason why I was not aware of the fact that the=
=20
constant of Lojban is not of classical predicate logic, nor of Thomas=20
McKay, but plural constant.

I tried to understand the page of gadri based on plural logic, mainly of=20
Thomas McKay.
I believe this principle was relevant, but undefined technical terms used=
=20
in the gadri page are very misleading.

I supposed first that the term "individual" should be defined as follows:
"SUMTI is individual" =3Dca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI me DA}
where RO DA is quantified plural variable.
This supposition was not bad.=20
However, I saw on the gadri page "An individual can be anything, including=
=20
a group,..." Now I began to be misled.
I thought: "An individual can be a group, then it contradicts my first=20
supposition."=20
(Now I know "a group" meant {lo gunma}, not "something in a domain of=20
plural variable"; but I was not aware of it at that time.)
I abandoned my supposition, and supposed that the "individual" must be=20
something another.
Then I saw "Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a constant,=20
i.e. not a quantified term. This means that it refers to one or more=20
individuals..."=20
I have already abandoned my first correct supposition, and believed that=20
this sentence meant a constant refers to one or more "something other than=
=20
individual of plural logic". I did not conclude that it meant "plural=20
constant", because Thomas McKay did not adopt it. I thought of the=20
possibility of "plural constant", but I did not guess how a plural constant=
=20
would be treated in logical axioms of Lojban, and finally abandoned the=20
interpretation that it meant "plural constant".

To avoid such misleading, I now suggest adding the following information on=
=20
the gadri page:
- definition of "individual",  that is,
"SUMTI is individual" =3Dca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI me DA}
where RO DA is quantified plural variable. {ro'oi da} instead of {RO DA}=20
may be better if you give a definition for it.
- "constant" of Lojban is not necessarily a singular constant, but a plural=
=20
constant.
- logical axioms for plural constant.

Moreover, calling something in a domain of plural variable "one or more=20
individuals" is misleading for me.
The term for "something in a domain of plural variable" should be first=20
given; after that "individual" is defined using it. The concept=20
"individual" is only a special case of "something in a domain of plural=20
variable" as defined above. This is not my particular way of thinking, but=
=20
general way of plural logic.
Something that is broda is not always "one or more individuals" defined=20
above: when a universe of discourse is given, there is no need that {lo=20
broda} in the universe of discourse is finally separated into individual=20
pieces that are members of the universe of discourse. An expression=20
reasonable for me would be: say "{lo broda} is something that is {broda}"=
=20
first, give a definition for "individual", and then "{lo broda} can be one=
=20
or more individuals".


By the way, based on the fact that {lo broda} is plural constant, another=
=20
problem occurs.
{lo broda} is defined as {zo'e}, and {zo'e} is defined as unspecific value.
When {lo broda} is a plural constant, it is a specific value, and=20
contradicts the definition of {zo'e}.=20
My understanding is that {zo'e} is essentially a free variable, and a=20
plural constant is implicitly substituted when a universe of discourse is=
=20
given. If it is correct, such a description should be included on the gadri=
=20
or zo'e page. If it is incorrect, some reasonable explanation is necessary.

=20

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

------=_Part_1744_7234890.1391873389114
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>Le samedi 8 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 09:28:10 UTC+9, xorx=
es a =C3=A9crit&nbsp;:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;=
margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=
=3D"ltr"><br><div><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at=
 9:03 PM, guskant <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" target=3D"_=
blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"RinDl7o_sF0J" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D'j=
avascript:';return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D'javascript:';return true;=
">gusni...@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div><br></div><div>My =
problem is, for example, how {lo no broda} can be meaningful if {lo broda} =
implies {su'o da poi ke'a broda}.&nbsp;</div>
</div></blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>To =
solve this problem, I need axioms for "plural constant".</div><div>
<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>"lo no broda" is not very =
meaningful, except perhaps as a joke or if you want to be whimsical or para=
doxical.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>=
</div><div><br></div><div>As long as PA of {lo PA broda} is defined as zilk=
ancu_2, {lo no broda} should be meaningful.</div><div>From that definition,=
 I guess that PA should be a member of a countable set, a rational number.<=
/div><div>There is no other information about this PA, then it is natural t=
hat {lo no broda} is meaningful.</div><div><br></div><div>Also from a pract=
ical point of view, it is better to give {lo no broda} some reasonable mean=
ing:</div><div><br></div><div>- lo xo prenu cu jmaji gi'e jukpa gi'e citka<=
/div><div>&nbsp;- no</div><div><br></div><div>Such a conversation is quite =
natural, and cannot be replaced by an outer quantifier in a simple way beca=
use it involves collectivity and distributivity. It should not be excluded =
from the language.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>&nbsp;</div><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-=
left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><div></div><div>BTW, "lo broda cu brode" does not imply "s=
u'o da poi broda cu brode", as you already pointed out, but it does imply "=
su'oi da poi broda cu brode". In other words "students are surrounding the =
building" does not necessarily imply that at least one student is surroundi=
ng the building, but it does imply that some student or students are surrou=
nding the building.</div>
<div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div=
><div>Yes, such a description is indeed what I need on the page of gadri.</=
div><div>I guess finally one axiom related to plural constant C of Lojban:<=
/div><div>- F(C) {inaja} there is X such that F(X),</div><div>where X is pl=
ural variable.</div><div><br></div><div>I became now aware of the reason wh=
y I was not aware of the fact that the constant of Lojban is not of classic=
al predicate logic, nor of Thomas McKay, but plural constant.</div><div><br=
></div><div>I tried to understand the page of gadri based on plural logic, =
mainly of Thomas McKay.</div><div>I believe this principle was relevant, bu=
t undefined technical terms used in the gadri page are very misleading.</di=
v><div><br></div><div>I supposed first that the term "individual" should be=
 defined as follows:</div><div>"SUMTI is individual" =3Dca'e {RO DA poi ke'=
a me SUMTI zo'u SUMTI me DA}</div><div>where RO DA is quantified plural var=
iable.</div><div>This supposition was not bad.&nbsp;</div><div>However, I s=
aw on the gadri page "An individual can be anything, including a group,..."=
 Now I began to be misled.</div><div>I thought: "An individual can be a gro=
up, then it contradicts my first supposition."&nbsp;</div><div>(Now I know =
"a group" meant {lo gunma}, not "something in a domain of plural variable";=
 but I was not aware of it at that time.)</div><div>I abandoned my supposit=
ion, and supposed that the "individual" must be something another.</div><di=
v>Then I saw "Any term without an explicit outer quantifier is a constant, =
i.e. not a quantified term. This means that it refers to one or more indivi=
duals..."&nbsp;</div><div>I have already abandoned my first correct supposi=
tion, and believed that this sentence meant a constant refers to one or mor=
e "something other than individual of plural logic". I did not conclude tha=
t it meant "plural constant", because Thomas McKay did not adopt it. I thou=
ght of the possibility of "plural constant", but I did not guess how a plur=
al constant would be treated in logical axioms of Lojban, and finally aband=
oned the interpretation that it meant "plural constant".</div><div><br></di=
v><div>To avoid such misleading, I now suggest adding the following informa=
tion on the gadri page:</div><div>- definition of "individual", &nbsp;that =
is,</div><div>"SUMTI is individual" =3Dca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me SUMTI zo'u S=
UMTI me DA}</div><div>where RO DA is quantified plural variable. {ro'oi da}=
 instead of {RO DA} may be better if you give a definition for it.</div><di=
v>- "constant" of Lojban is not necessarily a singular constant, but a plur=
al constant.</div><div>- logical axioms for plural constant.</div><div><br>=
</div><div>Moreover, calling something in a domain of plural variable "one =
or more individuals" is misleading for me.</div><div>The term for "somethin=
g in a domain of plural variable" should be first given; after that "indivi=
dual" is defined using it. The concept "individual" is only a special case =
of "something in a domain of plural variable" as defined above. This is not=
 my particular way of thinking, but general way of plural logic.</div><div>=
Something that is broda is not always "one or more individuals" defined abo=
ve: when a universe of discourse is given, there is no need that {lo broda}=
 in the universe of discourse is finally separated into individual pieces t=
hat are members of the universe of discourse. An expression reasonable for =
me would be: say "{lo broda} is something that is {broda}" first, give a de=
finition for "individual", and then "{lo broda} can be one or more individu=
als".</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>By the way, based on the fact=
 that {lo broda} is plural constant, another problem occurs.</div><div>{lo =
broda} is defined as {zo'e}, and {zo'e} is defined as unspecific value.</di=
v><div>When {lo broda} is a plural constant, it is a specific value, and co=
ntradicts the definition of {zo'e}.&nbsp;</div><div>My understanding is tha=
t {zo'e} is essentially a free variable, and a plural constant is implicitl=
y substituted when a universe of discourse is given. If it is correct, such=
 a description should be included on the gadri or zo'e page. If it is incor=
rect, some reasonable explanation is necessary.</div><div><br></div><div>&n=
bsp;</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

------=_Part_1744_7234890.1391873389114--