Received: from mail-ve0-f189.google.com ([209.85.128.189]:64789) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WCSD9-0001yY-ES for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 03:06:18 -0800 Received: by mail-ve0-f189.google.com with SMTP id c14sf1453599vea.6 for ; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 03:06:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=UUKEn/rZc5ILBjJqsLYqYYNpgIpLZCQ62r1VJDek9uc=; b=BaTEUZaYlBELD37o3UJTC4JKbrch/wCEtZZDOOOR8AKkPXZ9a7Sz4ZuPN05wBO7DEh 8nM9+RZbc0DUoOc7dsnuVXPtwzJ4J3J7Zlf4MConJpPROu06/ad1FdlYV1tkLxM42kI5 I/aWd5fN+UgNsL3bmVmMb8dHzd7gJ6PMo6fm2ZbAYJWUoBG8rsCo3LwbLcsH4QECbQu1 bsE1JVIpb4Ybu8UqknrixsqWMBDV7N4bzHpBcyKHIxW2BT+O4bE3g1e8QpMQFnG2ELR+ EXQ+gT5ufFZAjDQdaQs3c+C8e8NvURiv29yDtHkIqEdgVEI3Lgq0woLP1WGApfGDaCb8 SkOg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=UUKEn/rZc5ILBjJqsLYqYYNpgIpLZCQ62r1VJDek9uc=; b=XUp9iA01Tu27F9+oMSU0iX2J8qRXj4itHm2EiLHwFYpLz+NFs6L7ZoyDBgojlwoELj W4iQaCjL3mQHbS22paHadeKkYLbdNoiJRog+OM0k6M93GvMZIZE+P6+wsQaISLHO+JOh uODQiebXARuhHvgtYqjbDwZw43VWxAeSrw3q1dtIFX903kx2EsYc2VtO90cZCK35lR9D 275ZBToLTaW85FfABzivG9eEolXiujNjC5wVrP0aqPXIf1F1PltkNcS0oQsHO9hKpRpy GuBRQ0Ji7jjEqOPzZwATaP1e2rtd6UMxd/McYsUFSNMv8UeBZvpjxiqSSnkJHcgH4VZv nDZg== X-Received: by 10.50.29.41 with SMTP id g9mr150048igh.4.1391943961058; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 03:06:01 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.111.49 with SMTP id if17ls1456703igb.39.canary; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 03:06:00 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.164.200 with SMTP id ys8mr150172igb.1.1391943960735; Sun, 09 Feb 2014 03:06:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 9 Feb 2014 03:05:59 -0800 (PST) From: guskant To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de> <5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com> <52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de> <372dd8f1-1920-4afa-8d11-aa55696982a0@googlegroups.com> <03555bbd-cc44-426f-94ee-65d557f2d301@googlegroups.com> <592497c0-5db5-420e-867f-8df1663eca27@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: gusni.kantu@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="----=_Part_2304_3711335.1391943959923" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_2304_3711335.1391943959923 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le dimanche 9 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 01:44:47 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit : > > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:29 PM, guskant > > wrote: > >> >> 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= =20 >> no broda} is meaningful. >> > > I think the definition works well for natural numbers (i.e. positive=20 > integers), anything else is iffy. Even things like "lo pa pi mu broda" I= =20 > find questionable, if not outright wrong. > =20 > > 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. >> > > I agree that "lo no prenu" in such a context will be naturally interprete= d=20 > as "no'oi prenu" (the plural "no"). But I doubt that it can be consistent= ly=20 > worked into the system. For one thing, you open the door to things that= =20 > look like referring terms but don't actually refer to anything. (We alrea= dy=20 > have some of those, like "zi'o", but at least they are now confined to=20 > KOhA.) > > Why don't you define=20 {lo no broda} =3Dca'e {zi'o noi ke'a broda} only for the case that PA=3Dno? Under the condition that there is no official plural quantifier in Lojban,= =20 the inclusion of {lo no broda} is necessary for keeping the expressiveness= =20 of Lojban equal to that of plural quantification. =20 > > 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, b= ut=20 >> general way of plural logic. >> > > The problem with doing what you suggest, is that whatever term you choose= =20 > for that in the metalanguage will inevitably find its way into the langua= ge=20 > at some point, and then in the language it will refer to individuals (as = it=20 > does refer to meta-individuals in the metalanguage) and you have to start= =20 > all over with something else. I think "one or more individuals" is=20 > healthier. But if you prefer some other terminology there's nothing=20 > stopping you from writing up definitions with your preferred point of vie= w. > =20 > I would call {lo broda} "Something that is/are broda": I think it's enough= =20 for the most general value that is "something in a domain of plural=20 variable", and no other description on the sumti is sufficient to describe= =20 the most general plural constant. Using technical terms without definition is source of misleading. Based on this simple definition, we can define "individual", "sumti that=20 satisfies a selbri collectively" and "a set", then the readers will=20 understand the whole aspect of gadri. I'm not sure if it is permitted to edit the BPFK page of green line, but if= =20 you don't mind, I will try to modify the description of gadri page so that= =20 everyone will understand gadri correctly. =20 > > 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=20 >> value. >> > > It's defined as "elliptical/unspecified". It has a value or values, they= =20 > are just not given explicitly.=20 > =20 > >> 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 i= s=20 >> given. If it is correct, such a description should be included on the ga= dri=20 >> or zo'e page. If it is incorrect, some reasonable explanation is necessa= ry. >> > > An expression with a free variable doesn't have a truth value, it's not a= =20 > complete proposition. An expression with "zo'e" is a complete proposition= ,=20 > so zo'e can't be a free variable. "ke'a" and "ce'u" are free variables=20 > since the bridi they appear in are incomplete and don't have a truth valu= e=20 > by themselves. > > OK, now I understand that open sentences are essentially not required in=20 Lojban. =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_2304_3711335.1391943959923 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le dimanche 9 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 01:44:47 UTC+9, xo= rxes a =C3=A9crit :

On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 12:29= PM, guskant <gus= ni...@gmail.com> wrote:

<= div>As long as PA of {lo PA broda} is defined as zilkancu_2, {lo no broda} = should be meaningful.
From that definition, I guess that PA should be a member of a countabl= e set, a rational number.
There is no other information about thi= s PA, then it is natural that {lo no broda} is meaningful.

I think the definition works well for natural numbers (= i.e. positive integers), anything else is iffy. Even things like "lo pa pi = mu broda" I find questionable, if not outright wrong.
  

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

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

Such a conversation is quite natural, a= nd cannot be replaced by an outer quantifier in a simple way because it inv= olves collectivity and distributivity. It should not be excluded from the l= anguage.

I agree that "lo no prenu" in such a= context will be naturally interpreted as "no'oi prenu" (the plural "no"). = But I doubt that it can be consistently worked into the system. For one thi= ng, you open the door to things that look like referring terms but don't ac= tually refer to anything. (We already have some of those, like "zi'o", but = at least they are now confined to KOhA.)



Why don't you define 
{lo no broda} =3Dca'e {zi'o noi = ke'a broda}
only for the case that PA=3Dno?

<= div>Under the condition that there is no official plural quantifier in Lojb= an, the inclusion of {lo no broda} is necessary for keeping the expres= siveness of Lojban equal to that of plural quantification.

 

Moreover, calling something in= a domain of plural variable "one or more individuals" is misleading for me= .
The term for "something in a domain of plural variable" should be firs= t given; after that "individual" is defined using it. The concept "individu= al" 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.

The problem with doing what you sugg= est, is that whatever term you choose for that in the metalanguage will ine= vitably find its way into the language at some point, and then in the langu= age it will refer to individuals (as it does refer to meta-individuals in t= he metalanguage) and you have to start all over with something else. I thin= k "one or more individuals" is healthier. But if you prefer some other term= inology there's nothing stopping you from writing up definitions with your = preferred point of view.
 


I would call {lo broda} "Something that is/are broda": I think it's= enough for the most general value that is "something in a domain of p= lural variable", and no other description on the sumti is sufficient to des= cribe the most general plural constant.
Using technical terms wit= hout definition is source of misleading.

Based on = this simple definition, we can define "individual", "sumti that satisfies a= selbri collectively" and "a set", then the readers will understand the who= le aspect of gadri.

I'm not sure if it is permitte= d to edit the BPFK page of green line, but if you don't mind, I will try to= modify the description of gadri page so that everyone will understand gadr= i correctly.


 

By the way, based on the fact that {lo broda} is plural constant, another= problem occurs.
{lo broda} is defined as {zo'e}, and {zo'e} is defined as unspec= ific value.

It's defined as "el= liptical/unspecified". It has a value or values, they are just not given ex= plicitly. 
 
When = {lo broda} is a plural constant, it is a specific value, and contradicts th= e definition of {zo'e}. 
My understanding is that {zo'e} is essentially a free variable, and a = plural constant is implicitly substituted when a universe of discourse is g= iven. If it is correct, such a description should be included on the gadri = or zo'e page. If it is incorrect, some reasonable explanation is necessary.=

An expression with a free variable d= oesn't have a truth value, it's not a complete proposition. An expression w= ith "zo'e" is a complete proposition, so zo'e can't be a free variable. "ke= 'a" and "ce'u" are free variables since the bridi they appear in are incomp= lete and don't have a truth value by themselves.



OK, now I understand that open sentences are essentially not required= in Lojban.
 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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_2304_3711335.1391943959923--