Received: from mail-qc0-f185.google.com ([209.85.216.185]:63246) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WCrhd-0003I6-1H for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:19:26 -0800 Received: by mail-qc0-f185.google.com with SMTP id m20sf1842125qcx.2 for ; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:19:10 -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=eoZ/J/nLiKlrfegNxPxXMjwKMQ3jg7bA4nalbcll8IE=; b=weA+65pEs988qbi1MjplPMByZZ5JwJTN/Uv4i/2mTSsIIQ1Dp89jEJTss8fgcHn9J9 zBpQsiIFUVVDgaK3vcILglsaqTGr0UKjVKPSOLIb4BXBxT9aPTlIz+tDUb5Xf8J3Dmr3 y/uxaBKdE6wTnJ/67kwKubVtxj2ZpqwZV+L5cvyvRwx98PD+LocbdqDFWelb+aaZ2s06 Adn5hMNtbzQ4Zojk0a3PUWULNUpxbwwUQYS8icgyAc5VvLiqLDQKwcBD9FxFAwOXb9cH dD6mQRnkXWqQ9lFFfdyIhVrRnDV3X5C+PKXqneAkT0Nj3JZO0mSZGKi0hCGeANLQuxwq ODrQ== 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=eoZ/J/nLiKlrfegNxPxXMjwKMQ3jg7bA4nalbcll8IE=; b=rzbik4iJt0TTmiooBmcl4sPfgz9hNxYQZE4ncU8rvWl8IO3Zs0CsuWqRw8/u7gmsY1 fIehssv0unGkCwrG1+z3suVn4XfdKr0buuXSegGJh+ES2h0kM7IgVO+3X0iWUYmRh+EW jBv5Xaj7JBkpugRvtJkYOt74ld9A+HaW5U5zco+syo/mOqMI6VTEHYn+elD/iaul8S0Z 4WvkbEBu26LcZKghSEm0CCJE6lTUzRNl131Ync833lvb8k1AM6Q96xC5EjXDeDb5csPE llJ4yTdzWEGl8zu+DifM+7vD69PoEhRqGU9HSPNOY3xKV3CMGCUEihVZVT8V4cIbmw98 dhwg== X-Received: by 10.50.131.134 with SMTP id om6mr227480igb.11.1392041950628; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:19:10 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.225.67 with SMTP id ri3ls2034261igc.26.gmail; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:19:09 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.66.233 with SMTP id i9mr227548igt.17.1392041949166; Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:19:09 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 06:19:08 -0800 (PST) From: guskant To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <52F8C82E.3020705@gmx.de> 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> <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> <52F8C82E.3020705@gmx.de> 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_697_21201273.1392041948111" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_697_21201273.1392041948111 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le lundi 10 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 21:38:06 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit : > > la .guskant. cu cusku di'e=20 > > Le lundi 10 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 00:55:01 UTC+9, selpa'i a =C3=A9crit :=20 > > Let's say the original single line segment L looks like this:=20 > >=20 > > |-----------------------------------------------| <- {lo linji}= =20 > > L=20 > >=20 > > You seem to be saying that L is not an individual because we can=20 > > turn it=20 > > into multiple smaller line segments A, B, C, like this:=20 > >=20 > > |---------------| |---------------| |---------------|=20 > > A B C=20 > >=20 > > Further, you seem to be saying that A, B, and C are all among L. Yo= u=20 > > also seem to be saying that each of A, B, C are not individuals=20 > either,=20 > > because we can further split them, like this:=20 > >=20 > > |-------|-------| |-------|-------| |-------|-------|=20 > > M N O P Q R=20 > >=20 > > And that M and N are among A, and so on.=20 > >=20 > > Is this what you are saying?=20 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Yes.=20 > > 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 The individuality is not an necessary condition for being {lo linji}. A=20 special {lo linji} such that {RO DA poi ke'a me lo linji zo'u lo linji cu= =20 me DA} is an individual. =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.=20 > > There is no shortest line. That is the point for proving that any {lo=20 linji} in this universe of discourse cannot be an individual. =20 > > For example, in the case of finite {lo ci prenu}, let us call the three= =20 > > persons p1, p2, p3. In the universe of discourse. The following sumti= =20 > > are all in the domain of plural variable that are prenu even if you=20 > > don't mention the sumti:=20 > > p1=20 > > p2=20 > > p3=20 > > p1 jo'u p2=20 > > p2 jo'u p3=20 > > p3 jo'u p1=20 > > p1 jo'u p2 jo'u p3=20 > > Yes.=20 > > 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.=20 > > The 7 possible plural values for {prenu} above are all one or more=20 > individuals. Listing infinitely many more would not change that.=20 > > Not an infinite number of {lo linji} itself but an infinite number of=20 procedures of affirming that {lo linji xi ny cu me lo linji xi my i ku'i=20 naku lo linji xi my cu me lo linji xi ny} do prove that every {lo linji} is= =20 not one or more individuals. =20 > > Similarly, the infinite number of {lo linji} were in the domain of=20 > > plural variable that are linji when the universe of discourse was given= =20 > > first.=20 > > Infinity does not preclude individualness. If you have an infinite=20 > number of "things", then you just have infinitely many individuals.=20 > {lo linji} in that universe of discourse are not individuals but an=20 infinite number of non-individuals, because every {lo linji xi my} has=20 always another {lo linji xi ny} such that {lo linji xi ny cu me lo linji xi my i ku'i naku lo linji xi my cu me lo=20 linji xi ny}, and this proposition contradicts the condition for individual= =20 {RO DA poi ke'a me lo linji xi my zo'u lo linji xi my cu me DA}. Therefore,= =20 every {lo linji} is neither an individual nor individuals. =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_697_21201273.1392041948111 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le lundi 10 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 21:38:06 UTC+9, selp= a'i a =C3=A9crit :
la .gus= kant. 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 l= ike this:
>
>     |----------------------------------------------= -|   <- {lo linji}
>                   &nb= sp;           L
>
>     You seem to be saying that L is not an individual be= cause we can
>     turn it
>     into multiple smaller line segments A, B, C, like th= is:
>
>     |---------------| |---------------| |---------------= |
>               A     &= nbsp;           B         &nbs= p;       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 either,
>     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. Yo= u


The individuality is not = an necessary condition for being {lo linji}. A special {lo linji} such that= {RO DA poi ke'a me lo linji zo'u lo linji cu me DA} is an individual.


 

could say that {lo linji} is more than one individual, and then the sam= e=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 th= e=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.



There is no shortest li= ne. That is the point for proving that any {lo linji} in this universe of d= iscourse cannot be an individual.


&= nbsp;
> For example, i= n the case of finite {lo ci prenu}, let us call the three
> persons p1, p2, p3. In the universe of discourse. The following su= mti
> are all in the domain of plural variable that are prenu even if yo= u
> 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.



Not an infinite number = of {lo linji} itself but an infinite number of procedures of affirming that= {lo linji xi ny cu me lo linji xi my i ku'i naku lo linji xi my cu me lo l= inji xi ny} do prove that every {lo linji} is not one or more individuals.<= /div>


 
> Similarly, the infinite number of {lo linji} wer= e 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.


{lo linji} in that universe= of discourse are not individuals but an infinite number of non-indivi= duals, because every {lo linji xi my} has always another {lo linji xi ny} s= uch that
{lo linji xi ny cu me lo linji xi my i ku'i naku lo linj= i xi my cu me lo linji xi ny}, and this proposition contradicts the conditi= on for individual {RO DA poi ke'a me lo linji xi my zo'u lo linji xi my cu = me DA}. Therefore, every {lo linji} is neither an individual nor = individuals.
 

--
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_697_21201273.1392041948111--