Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.22;
Message-ID: <52F8C82E.3020705@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:38:06 +0100
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
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> <592497c0-5db5-420e-867f-8df1663eca27@googlegroups.com> <52F65A5C.90605@gmx.de> <348c23bf-6d9f-4a05-bfe7-69b141c03cb7@googlegroups.com> <52F776EE.6070406@gmx.de> <6ffd64d2-2e2c-4b83-8722-b7f262f5837a@googlegroups.com> <52F7A4D5.5070106@gmx.de> <56096dec-1969-420d-b4e5-b8539cbe0cc0@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <56096dec-1969-420d-b4e5-b8539cbe0cc0@googlegroups.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Le lundi 10 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 00:55:01 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :
>     Let's say the original single line segment L looks like this:
>
>     |-----------------------------------------------|   <- {lo linji}
>                               L
>
>     You seem to be saying that L is not an individual because we can
>     turn it
>     into multiple smaller line segments A, B, C, like this:
>
>     |---------------| |---------------| |---------------|
>               A                 B                 C
>
>     Further, you seem to be saying that A, B, and C are all among L. You
>     also seem to be saying that each of A, B, C are not individuals eithe=
r,
>     because we can further split them, like this:
>
>     |-------|-------| |-------|-------| |-------|-------|
>           M       N         O       P         Q       R
>
>     And that M and N are among A, and so on.
>
>     Is this what you are saying?
>
>
>
> Yes.

But how does that work? If the original {lo linji} (L) is an individual,=20
then only itself can be among itself. On the other hand, if it is *not*=20
an individual, then we cannot call it {lo linji} in the first place. You=20
could say that {lo linji} is more than one individual, and then the same=20
things that applied to the singular L would apply again for each of the=20
referents of the "more than one individual" L. At some point through the=20
taxonomy, you must arrive at an individual or individuals and then you=20
can't go further and say that even smaller things are among that=20
individual. Even the shortest line doesn't have {lo mokca} {me} it.

> For example, in the case of finite {lo ci prenu}, let us call the three
> persons p1, p2, p3. In the universe of discourse. The following sumti
> are all in the domain of plural variable that are prenu even if you
> don't mention the sumti:
> p1
> p2
> p3
> p1 jo'u p2
> p2 jo'u p3
> p3 jo'u p1
> p1 jo'u p2 jo'u p3

Yes.

But I don't quite see how this is the same case. If this is what you=20
were going for with the {linji} example, then it doesn't show anything=20
that qualifies as not being one or more individuals.

The 7 possible plural values for {prenu} above are all one or more=20
individuals. Listing infinitely many more would not change that.

> Similarly, the infinite number of {lo linji} were in the domain of
> plural variable that are linji when the universe of discourse was given
> first.

Infinity does not preclude individualness. If you have an infinite=20
number of "things", then you just have infinitely many individuals.

mi'e la selpa'i mu'o

--=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.