Received: from mail-pb0-f62.google.com ([209.85.160.62]:55413) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WEwKj-0004nn-MH for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:40:23 -0800 Received: by mail-pb0-f62.google.com with SMTP id um1sf3754509pbc.7 for ; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:40:07 -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=O7o2yPnZu8orPXQkRLZcM8thYhulczhIIOuzB0WR8P0=; b=HFnUyp1wT491t+lUq2rQEdKAQJKcWypYk/UNtk70uXIh5ynik95eU2RVKzJX1bNKst AS0oU+vFFnu2zJTuJfBOkT65qYMxdceuJxkmM5UopJ0eWrlU3HcyutBW09lNhPQpfcKu 46qBp1ChDz27B7Rfk2WSBl928wIHotjJYFOxklHyRljpm4m8yArRPMEujrE2SrDuEfVh LciUPvfYHHqI7JsSeC+eZtcT7Cv/uQlecvXVyKGxIyfJ2lUhWIvlnOnvkRXF9H0zt+9H RSmnuJtd7u6SBmu0lXXc6J8aiNbqIy5Ml+43lCkjtXFMHDHf6XpX7VZCRb6At3IkM1yP Ul3Q== 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=O7o2yPnZu8orPXQkRLZcM8thYhulczhIIOuzB0WR8P0=; b=eGbwG9+eoGHHBz1WPnAmI9gVt0mTMreC53O/w7Cz5xk3CX3syCxdtUS7a96VlGW6Z2 EtihTUdy4a8eNeB2KkP+yQ+GkHULwJ4F2WYBUi/1E2NfI7a1AYdWgMu4n1a5/3xk7oY6 M3VxGmDtEh0TDntzDH3ngwRbsfCu/hvVnkPe8+dwhqPycHpBTh51jTVT0sbDQ0XFM7GJ adORzm3jDQibbvQuTc/p/3tnRDrICApDtDAXd2VWxKy7KyhtarOAbJ+R9EkbBFzCDvY9 HsCJoL43y6vjqYATAZeW5wCEE4TD2l9EPv6vW8Ur/zNNJ/hwXKn8wL0J/qP/L73kVYQC jGPQ== X-Received: by 10.50.164.163 with SMTP id yr3mr209469igb.3.1392536407621; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:40:07 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.28.41 with SMTP id y9ls634529igg.37.gmail; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:40:06 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.50.93.37 with SMTP id cr5mr211325igb.8.1392536406750; Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:40:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 23:40:05 -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> <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> <52F8FAA2.9030009@gmx.de> <52FE053C.3000604@gmx.de> <1e6d5917-ad1e-4c5b-abb7-5deb92110b83@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_199_23130397.1392536405373" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_199_23130397.1392536405373 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le dimanche 16 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 01:31:01 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit : > > > > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 10:45 AM, guskant > > wrote: >> >> >> Le samedi 15 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 10:55:19 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit : >> >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:36 PM, guskant wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> It is because the following proposition is given as an axiom in the=20 >>>> universe of discourse (UD1) on the current topic. >>>> P1:=20 >>>> ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo ku'o su'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da me= =20 >>>> de >>>> >>> >>> From P1 I get "no da me lo sidbo". >>> =20 >>> >> If another axiom that is equivalent to P3 were given on UD1, yes, we=20 >> would get "no da me lo sidbo". However, we did not give P3 or the=20 >> equivalent as an axiom on UD1. >> > > Why doesn't "no da me lo sidbo" follow directly from just P1?=20 > > Suppose "no da me lo sidbo" is false. Then "su'o da me lo sidbo" is true.= =20 > Then "su'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo ku'o no'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da= =20 > me de", which contradicts P1. So under P1, "no da me lo sidbo" must be tr= ue. > =20 > Sorry, I was confused it with {no'oi da me lo sidbo}.=20 {no da me lo sidbo} is true under only P1. For {no'oi da me lo sidbo}, both= =20 P1 and P3 are required, though. =20 > =20 > >> >> Here is the proof of P2. >> > > Yes, sorry, P2 does follow from P1. I was confused about something else.= =20 > P2 says that lo sidbo is not a single individual. But from P1 you can=20 > derive a stronger theorem, not just that lo sidbo is not one individual,= =20 > but also that there are no individuals at all among lo sidbo. > =20 > >> Moreover, it is also proved that {lo sidbo} is not individuals using a= =20 >> property of jo'u: >> > > Indeed, that follows from P1, but not just from P2. I was slightly=20 > confused because P2 is too weak for what I thought you were saying, which= =20 > is that lo sidbo is not one or more individuals.=20 > > > I understand that giving an axiom >> {ro'oi da su'oi de ro'oi di poi ke'a me de zo'u de me di ije de me da} >> (for all X there is Y such that Y is individual and Y {me} X) >> is very useful, and also necessary for conforming to mereology with=20 >> atoms.=20 >> >> Still, we cannot assert this proposition to be a common axiom to all the= =20 >> universes of discourse, because=20 >> "Something that needs to be noted in general: we, the BPFK, made a=20 >> consensus decision that we do not make rulings on ontological or=20 >> metaphysical issues."=20 >> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/How+to+use+xorlo >> > > (That page has a few of strange assertions, so I would take it with a=20 > grain of salt, but I agree about not making rulings on ontological or=20 > metaphysical issues.)=20 > > =20 > >> Asserting "ro'oi da su'oi de" as a common axiom is indeed an ontological= =20 >> commitment, and violates the principle of xorlo. >> > > I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just curious about what are= =20 > the things you could say that don't involve individuals. What type of=20 > discourse would you analyse as taking place in a universe without=20 > individuals?=20 > > I meant I was deceived by the description on the gadri page that {lo broda}= =20 "refers generically to any or some individual or individuals". Because I=20 knew what is among and what is individual, I believed that "individual" on= =20 the page is something different from what is defined in the theory of=20 among. Actually, the word "individual" is not necessary for definition of= =20 {lo}. If {lo} were first defined, and after that "individual" were defined,= =20 then I would not have been deceived. Whether {ro'oi da su'oi de ro'oi di poi ke'a me de zo'u de me di ije de me= =20 da} is applied or not to a universe of discourse is not always important in= =20 usual conversation. We can talk with each other without mentioning=20 individuals: - xu do djica tu'a lo ckafi=20 - go'i iji'a tu'a lo sakta It is not necessary to mention that {lo ckafi} and {lo sakta} are=20 individuals. They can exist as non-individual, as long as we don't apply an= =20 outer quantifier to them. =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_199_23130397.1392536405373 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le dimanche 16 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 01:31:01 UTC+9, x= orxes a =C3=A9crit :


On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at= 10:45 AM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Le samedi 15 f=C3=A9vrier 2014 10:55:19 UTC+9, xorxes = a =C3=A9crit :

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:36 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

It is because the following= proposition is given as an axiom in the universe of discourse (UD1) on the= current topic.
P1: 
ro'oi da poi ke'a me lo sidbo= ku'o su'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da me de

 From P1 I get "no da me lo sid= bo".
 
If ano= ther axiom that is equivalent to P3 were given on UD1, yes, we would get "n= o da me lo sidbo". However, we did not give P3 or the equivalent as an axio= m on UD1.

Why doesn't "no da me lo sidbo" foll= ow directly from just P1? 

Suppose "no da me = lo sidbo" is false. Then "su'o da me lo sidbo" is true. Then "su'oi da poi = ke'a me lo sidbo ku'o no'oi de zo'u de me da ijenai da me de", which contra= dicts P1. So under P1, "no da me lo sidbo" must be true.
 


Sorry, I was confused it with {no'oi da me lo sidbo}. 
{no da me lo sidbo} is true under only P1. For {no'oi da me lo sidbo}, b= oth P1 and P3 are required, though.


 
=
 

Here is the proof of P= 2.

Yes, sorry, P2 does follow from P1. I was confused abou= t something else. P2 says that lo sidbo is not a single individual. But fro= m P1 you can derive a stronger theorem, not just that lo sidbo is not one i= ndividual, but also that there are no individuals at all among lo sidbo.
 
Moreover, it is also proved that {lo sidbo} is not individuals using = a property of jo'u:

Indeed, that follows from P1, but no= t just from P2. I was slightly confused because P2 is too weak for what I t= hought you were saying, which is that lo sidbo is not one or more individua= ls. 


I understand that giving an axiom
{ro'oi da su'oi de ro'o= i di poi ke'a me de zo'u de me di ije de me da}
(for all X there is Y such that Y is individual and Y {me} X)
is very useful, and also necessary for conforming to mereology with atoms= . 

Still, we cannot assert this proposition t= o be a common axiom to all the universes of discourse, because 
"Something that needs to be noted in general: we, the BPFK, made a con= sensus decision that we do not make rulings on ontological or metaphysical = issues." 

(That page has a few of strange asse= rtions, so I would take it with a grain of salt, but I agree about not maki= ng rulings on ontological or metaphysical issues.) 

 
Asserting "ro'oi da su'oi de" as a common axiom is indeed an ontologi= cal commitment, and violates the principle of xorlo.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with= you. I'm just curious about what are the things you could say that don't i= nvolve individuals. What type of discourse would you analyse as taking plac= e in a universe without individuals? 



I meant I was deceived by the description on the gadri page that {lo = broda} "refers generically to any or some individual or individuals". Becau= se I knew what is among and what is individual, I believed that "individual= " on the page is something different from what is defined in the theory of = among. Actually, the word "individual" is not necessary for definition of {= lo}. If {lo} were first defined, and after that "individual" were defined, = then I would not have been deceived.

Whether {ro'o= i da su'oi de ro'oi di poi ke'a me de zo'u de me di ije de me da} is applie= d or not to a universe of discourse is not always important in usual conver= sation. We can talk with each other without mentioning individuals:

- xu do djica tu'a lo ckafi 
 - go'i = iji'a tu'a lo sakta

It is not necessary to mention= that {lo ckafi} and {lo sakta} are individuals. They can exist as non-indi= vidual, as long as we don't apply an outer quantifier to them.

 

--
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_199_23130397.1392536405373--