Received: from mail-pa0-f61.google.com ([209.85.220.61]:53462) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WoUQQ-0000Tw-Tz for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 25 May 2014 02:09:10 -0700 Received: by mail-pa0-f61.google.com with SMTP id ey11sf1762277pad.26 for ; Sun, 25 May 2014 02:08:56 -0700 (PDT) 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=bpI6yBJbe6+Vd0591fY+kKBreZATaIUjVjmOkU9Wivo=; b=x0owIwfIy4SgLvbN+za1wm32LDDnLtHGnS8KvW5713yA5zQ14TsaLNq0iz0T0l1nsS W09g4omCT7Tr7P+QCct/29YgRo4FVgtatu+miVPV/xOlbpY528a99Ap3C/c3xl9srNoZ 7DU6gMtDQ5yMu33JoCJuiROsVYaOIqG+jRzNNz4paYL57027NXRuudlv+Q213slXKPom g0ijsfn1pJJWoG7esUxNEDUIKmDJGEylACE1InsBjg991YJO6k1tnB+BTQcrzqBRq4x3 Q609XLcJWPEgBAX3xdhs59M8z/PgcESqjjiHGEGvrDauE3JFqkGMMmKsaAoJjbiMqAMY /66g== 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=bpI6yBJbe6+Vd0591fY+kKBreZATaIUjVjmOkU9Wivo=; b=j9z3eKsnnEezehgHOZtdrnLhaeoMAPP9ZRtg0ZQcqzdxmL/tZWDWjh2QljFgJdnPd/ gEJJ8f9qYRBR8I/DgRr72ZoEKHjOd80kgrhfY925ammLCn5V50A4/HglvbYVdJbdHMDC QNe7NJiNx9SY7JsCPMCfCtRLCT5XYwLtRKYkaRcpgcL6sS4emyM3ZYzcZ2uL17tNF0MS zNil2pWMxvu5nUvZuNPUO3nIwMko2S1zL/WQgbMl4qKMv+4oIq+ljoFB7Hmxam6LvNcA niE5zniEM2tdWSojGl3Ev/C3aja1dMufn585hrtki8rG4z8FNbdrrgfwoxTQDHnk6b9r Ijjw== X-Received: by 10.50.137.67 with SMTP id qg3mr323705igb.2.1401008936704; Sun, 25 May 2014 02:08:56 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.124.226 with SMTP id ml2ls1122301igb.13.gmail; Sun, 25 May 2014 02:08:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.61.100 with SMTP id o4mr322841igr.7.1401008936247; Sun, 25 May 2014 02:08:56 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 25 May 2014 02:08:54 -0700 (PDT) From: guskant To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: <91db94e6-0999-4eb8-b3aa-0e4447092001@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: <1400948594.69568.YahooMailNeo@web181102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> 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> <68bacba4-a957-481c-ba00-211db2de8dc3@googlegroups.com> <2f4f0766-1f52-46f0-80af-b4de86d9b5bd@googlegroups.com> <618e6524-d7f0-46c9-8d0b-bbee2dd0cd41@googlegroups.com> <36c4c2b2-8f8c-4d44-ac8e-48c02d45a233@googlegroups.com> <4b6b2cb9-51e5-47f6-97a9-2dec16406864@googlegroups.com> <390f1b9f-6edd-42f2-8474-ad1f3610cca3@googlegroups.com> <750f9b01-a747-4b12-80ba-e31b7e7bd20e@googlegroups.com> <570dae9f-cda3-42c4-a861-1c7974fe5bfd@googlegroups.com> <1400948594.69568.YahooMailNeo@web181102.mail.ne1.yahoo.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_2264_14326327.1401008934893" X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / ------=_Part_2264_14326327.1401008934893 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le samedi 24 mai 2014 09:45:37 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit : > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:04 AM, guskant wrote: > >> >> I have finished English translation of my commentary on gadri from a=20 >> logical point of view: >> >> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/gadri%3A+an+unofficial+commentary+from+a+logi= cal+point+of+view&no_bl=3Dy >> > > Very nice. Here are some comments from me: > > > (1)<< > *argument (sumti)*Symbol that refers to a referent, or that another=20 > argument can be substituted for. > >> > > Your definition of "sumti" implies that "zi'o" is not a sumti. This is=20 > fine, but perhaps it's worth pointing out in a note this odd word, which = is=20 > also called a "sumti" in a wider, merely syntactic sense, Also things li= ke=20 > "no da", "ci lo gerku", "mi .e do" and so on are called "sumti" in our=20 > formal grammars, although they only contain sumti by the semantic=20 > definition. Two other words that deserve special mention in this context= =20 > are "ko" and "ma", which can arguably be said to fall under your=20 > definition, although they also are illocutionary force indicating devices= ,=20 > which ordinary sumti are not.=20 > > I agree. {zi'o} is difficult to deal with, because it is grammatically=20 sumti while it is logically eraser of place for an argument. I should add a= =20 note for it, as well as the other sumti that you pointed out. =20 > (2)<< > When each of X and Y is an individual, {X jo'u Y} is called *individuals* > .=20 > >> > > I think you need to add "and X is not equal to Y" if you want to be more= =20 > strict. > =20 > I agree. =20 > (3)<< > A plural constant that is an individual is called *singular constant*. > > >> > > I'd rephrase that as: "A plural constant that refers to a single=20 > individual is called a singular constant". I think it's worth keeping the= =20 > distinction between the words or symbols, (constants and variables) and t= he=20 > referents of those symbols (things, people, trees, mountains, numbers, an= d=20 > so on). A constant can be singular or plural, and it can refer to an=20 > individual, but the constant is not the individual. The individual is the= =20 > person, the tree or the house that the constant refers to. So if "X" is a= =20 > singular constant, then X is an indifidual.=20 > I agree. I should have been more attentive about that point. =20 > (4)<< > > No matter whether each of X and Y is plural or singular, {X jo'u Y} is no= t=20 > a singular constant.=20 > > >> > > Unless X=3DY and X is an individual. But linguistically that would be odd= =20 > indeed. "jo'u" should not be generally used to join something with itself= ,=20 > although theoretically it can be. > > > My commentary is rather aiming at logical explanation than linguistic one.= =20 I will add "unless X=3DY and X is an individual". =20 > (5)<< > > ro da ro'oi da poi ro'oi de poi ke'a xi pa me ke'a xi re zo'u ke'a xi= =20 > re me de > > su'o da su'oi da poi ro'oi de poi ke'a xi pa me ke'a xi re zo'u ke'a x= i=20 > re me de > >> > > When "poi" is used to restrict the domain for da/de/di, it is not=20 > necessary to use "ke'a", and indeed it's more clear to not use "ke'a".=20 > "ke'a" is needed when there is no explicit variable bound by the=20 > quantifier, but here your definitions are much more clear as: > > ro da ro'oi da poi ro'oi de poi de me da zo'u da me de > > su'o da su'oi da poi ro'oi de poi de me da zo'u da me de > I agree. =20 > > (6)<< > For example, a plural constant {A jo'u B} can be in a domain of a bound= =20 > plural variable, but it cannot be in a domain of a bound singular variabl= e=20 > because it is not an individual. > >> > > Constants are not in the domain of variables, it's their referents that= =20 > are in the domain. And plural and singular quantifiers can share the same= =20 > domain. I think what you want to say is that a variable bound by a singul= ar=20 > quantifier cannot take more than one individual value at a time. > I agree again about that point. =20 > > (7)<< > *lo* (LE)It is prefixed to selbri, and forms a plural constant that=20 > refers to what satisfies x1, the first place of the selbri. If a quantifi= er=20 > follows {lo}, the quantifier represents the sum of all the referents of t= he=20 > plural constant. In the case that a quantifier follows {lo}, a sumti may= =20 > follow it, and the quantifier represents the sum of all the referents of= =20 > the sumti. > >> > > I think "number", "count" or "quantity" would be better than "sum" there.= =20 > To take an extreme example: "lo ci namcu" has three referents, three=20 > numbers. But "ci" is not (necessarily) the sum of the three numbers. The= =20 > three numbers could be 1, 2 and 3. Their sum is 6, while their number is = 3. > > OK, this is because of my bad English. I will fix the translation. =20 > That nitpick aside, the second part is at least unclear. In "lo ci ko'a",= =20 > "ci" is the number of referents of "lo ci ko'a", but "ko'a" could have mo= re=20 > than three referents. If you want to express that three is the number of= =20 > referents of the inner sumti as well you need "lo ro ci ko'a". "lo ci lo = mu=20 > gerku" has three referents, but the inner sumti has five. > > I wrote about "3.1.1. Repeating inner quantification", but it would be=20 better to add a note about {lo ci ko'a} just under the definition of {lo}. =20 > (8)<< > An empty set is {lo selcmi be no da}, and an expression {lo no broda} is= =20 > officially meaningless (see Section 3.1[image:=20 > Edit Plugin:alink]. This implies that an empty set cannot be expressed=20 > with {lo'i/le'i/la'i}. > >> > > Arguably, lots of things can be described as "lo selcmi be no da", not=20 > just the empty set. A spoon, for example, or anything else that is not a= =20 > set, will satisfy "ke'a selcmi no da". "lo selcmi be no da" works well as= a=20 > description of the empty set in a universe of discourse in which there ar= e=20 > only sets. (But then that is really the only universe of discourse in whi= ch=20 > one should mention sets at all, in my opinion.) > > {lo selcmi be no da} is a standard definition of "empty set" of set theory.= =20 In other words, {zo'e noi roda naku zo'u ke'a selcmi da}. We can think of a= =20 universe of discourse in which a spoon satisfies {ke'a selcmi no da}, but= =20 it means that the spoon is regarded as an empty set in that universe of=20 discourse. An empty set is indeed a kind of set, {lo selcmi}. If we wanted= =20 to imply that a spoon is not a set, we could rather say that a spoon=20 satisfies {ke'a selcmi zi'o}, in which the meaning of {selcmi} was changed= =20 by {zi'o}. =20 > There's another problem with the "lo'i" definition. Can "lo selcmi be lo= =20 > broda" be any set that has lo broda among its members, or is it the one a= nd=20 > only set that has lo broda as its sole members? "cmima" only says that x1= =20 > is/are among the members of x2, does "selcmi" say that its x2 are all the= =20 > members of its x1? Open question. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > You created a Lojban entry of {selcmi} in jbovlaste: http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/selcmi It might have been modified by someone else, and is now defined as follows: {x1 selcmi x2} =3Dca'e {x1 se cmima ro lo me x2 me'u e no lo na me x2}=20 That is to say, the meaning of {selcmi} is different from {se cmima}, and= =20 {lo selcmi be lo broda} is the one and only set that has lo broda as its=20 sole members. However, I would prefer that the meaning of {selcmi} is the same as {se=20 cmima}, and that {A cmima A ce B} is implied by {A ce B selcmi A}. In that= =20 case, {lo selcmi be lo broda} can be any set that has lo broda among its=20 members. I am willing to add a comment on it, but I'm not sure if I should= =20 obey the definition of jbovlaste, or rather keep it as an open question. I will release the second version of the commentary in a few days. Le samedi 24 mai 2014 11:53:33 UTC+9, Pierre Abbat a =C3=A9crit : > > On Friday, May 23, 2014 21:45:35 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote:=20 > > (8)<<=20 > > An empty set is {lo selcmi be no da}, and an expression {lo no broda} i= s=20 > > officially meaningless (see Section=20 > > 3.1< > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/gadri%3A+an+unofficial+commentary+from+a+logi= =20 > > cal+point+of+view&bl#Inner_quantification>[image: Edit Plugin:alink].= =20 > This=20 > > implies that an empty set cannot be expressed with {lo'i/le'i/la'i}.=20 > >=20 > >=20 > > Arguably, lots of things can be described as "lo selcmi be no da", not= =20 > just=20 > > the empty set. A spoon, for example, or anything else that is not a=20 > set,=20 > > will satisfy "ke'a selcmi no da". "lo selcmi be no da" works well as a= =20 > > description of the empty set in a universe of discourse in which there= =20 > are=20 > > only sets. (But then that is really the only universe of discourse in= =20 > which=20 > > one should mention sets at all, in my opinion.)=20 > > That's why I entered "zilcmi". lo kunti zilcmi cu na selcmi .iva'i lo=20 > kunti=20 > zilcmi cu selcmi noda=20 > > mu'omi'e .pier.=20 > --=20 > ve ka'a ro klaji la .romas. se jmaji=20 > i ja'aku zo'u lo smuci cu ka'e selcmi zi'o ije lo kunti selcmi be zi'o cu= =20 na selcmi zo'e iku'i ma'i lo selcmi saske naku zo'u lo kunti selcmi be zi'o= =20 cu selcmi noda iki'ubo lo nu pilno lo fe zei sumti po zo selcmi cu sarcu lo= =20 nu skicu lo smuni be zoi gy empty set gy =20 Le dimanche 25 mai 2014 01:23:16 UTC+9, clifford a =C3=A9crit : > > While it is important to point out the word/object distinction, it is=20 > probably a lost cause in Lojban (as it is in English and logic textbooks)= .=20 > Every time any systematic attempt is made to fix this distinction, the n= ew=20 > expressions are collapsed together again: term, predicate, function,.=20 > argument, and so on. One is tempted (for more reasons than just this) to= =20 > go back to "noun" and "verb" for the words. > > > I will fix the confusing parts. If la xorxes approves the whole commentary,= =20 it will become indeed the important theoretical basis of gadri, and it=20 should be included in the next version of CLL, because the current gadri=20 page of BPFK lacks explanation on the relation between gadri and logic. =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/d/optout. ------=_Part_2264_14326327.1401008934893 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le samedi 24 mai 2014 09:45:37 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3= =A9crit :

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:04 AM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wr= ote:

I= have finished English translation of my commentary on gadri from a lo= gical point of view:
<= /blockquote>

Very nice. Here are some comments from me:<= /div>


(1)<<
argument (sumti)
Symbol that refers to a referent, or that another a= rgument can be substituted for.
>>

Your definition of "sumti" implies that "zi'o" is not a sumti. This i= s fine, but perhaps it's worth pointing out in a note this odd word, which = is also called a "sumti" in a wider, merely syntactic sense,  Also thi= ngs like "no da", "ci lo gerku", "mi .e do" and so on are called "sumti" in= our formal grammars, although they only contain sumti by the semantic defi= nition. Two other words that deserve special mention in this context are "k= o" and "ma", which can arguably be said to fall under your definition, alth= ough they also are illocutionary force indicating devices, which ordinary s= umti are not. 

=
I agree. {zi'o} is difficult to deal with, because it is gra= mmatically sumti while it is logically eraser of place for an argument. I s= hould add a note for it, as well as the other sumti that you pointed out.

 
(2)<<
When each of X and Y is an indivi= dual, {X jo'u Y} is called individuals. 
>>

I think you need to add= "and X is not equal to Y" if you want to be more strict.
 <= /div>


I agree.


 
= (3)<<
A plura= l constant that is an individual is called singular= constant.
=

>>

I'd rephrase that as: "A plur= al constant that refers to a single individual is called a singular constan= t". I think it's worth keeping the distinction between the words or symbols= , (constants and variables) and the referents of those symbols (things, peo= ple, trees, mountains, numbers, and so on). A constant can be singular or p= lural, and it can refer to an individual, but the constant is not the indiv= idual. The individual is the person, the tree or the house that the constan= t refers to. So if "X" is a singular constant, then X is an indifidual.&nbs= p;



I agree. = I should have been more attentive about that point.


 
=

(4)<<

No matter whether each of X and Y is plural or singular, {X jo'u Y} is not= a singular constant. 

>>


=

My commentary is rather aiming at logical = explanation than linguistic one. I will add "unless X=3DY and X is an indiv= idual".


 

=

(5)<<

ro da    ro'= oi da poi ro'oi de poi ke'a xi pa me ke'a xi re zo'u ke'a xi re me de

su'o da    su'oi da poi ro'oi de poi ke'a xi pa me= ke'a xi re zo'u ke'a xi re me de

>>

=
When "poi" is used to restrict the domain for da/de/di, it is not nece= ssary to use "ke'a", and indeed it's more clear to not use "ke'a". "ke'a" i= s needed when there is no explicit variable bound by the quantifier, but he= re your definitions are much more clear as:

ro da =    ro'oi da poi ro'oi de poi de me da zo'u da me de
su'o da    su'oi da poi ro'oi de poi de me da zo'u da= me de


I agree.


 

(6)<<

(7)<<
= lo (LE)
It i= s prefixed to selbri, and forms a plural constant that refers to what satis= fies x1, the first place of the selbri. If a quantifier follows {lo}, the q= uantifier represents the sum of all the referents of the plural constant. I= n the case that a quantifier follows {lo}, a sumti may follow it, and the q= uantifier represents the sum of all the referents of the sumti.
<= div>>>

I think "number", "count" or "quantit= y" would be better than "sum" there. To take an extreme example: "lo ci nam= cu" has three referents, three numbers. But "ci" is not (necessarily) the s= um of the three numbers. The three numbers could be 1, 2 and 3. Their sum i= s 6, while their number is 3.

=


OK, this is because of my bad English. I= will fix the translation.


 
That nitpick aside, the second part is at least unclear. = In "lo ci ko'a", "ci" is the number of referents of "lo ci ko'a", but "ko'a= " could have more than three referents. If you want to express that three i= s the number of referents of the inner sumti as well you need "lo ro ci ko'= a". "lo ci lo mu gerku" has three referents, but the inner sumti has five.<= /div>



=
I wrote about "3.1.1. Repeating inner quantification", but it would be= better to add a note about {lo ci ko'a} just under the definition of {lo}.=


 
 (8= )<<
An empty set is = {lo selcmi be no da}, and an expression {lo no broda} is officially meaning= less (see Section 3.13D"Edit. This implies that an empty set cannot be expressed with {l= o'i/le'i/la'i}.
>>

Arguably, lots of things = can be described as "lo selcmi be no da", not just the empty set.  A s= poon, for example, or anything else that is not a set, will satisfy "ke'a s= elcmi no da". "lo selcmi be no da" works well as a description of the empty= set in a universe of discourse in which there are only sets. (But then tha= t is really the only universe of discourse in which one should mention sets= at all, in my opinion.)


=

{lo selcmi be no da} is a standard definition of "empty= set" of set theory. In other words, {zo'e noi roda naku zo'u ke'a selcmi d= a}. We can think of a universe of discourse in which a spoon satisfies {ke'= a selcmi no da}, but it means that the spoon is regarded as an empty set in= that universe of discourse. An empty set is indeed a kind of set, {lo selc= mi}. If we wanted to imply that a spoon is not a set, we could rather say t= hat a spoon satisfies {ke'a selcmi zi'o}, in which the meaning of {selcmi} = was changed by {zi'o}.


 
=
There's another problem with the "lo'i" definit= ion. Can "lo selcmi be lo broda" be any set that has lo broda among its mem= bers, or is it the one and only set that has lo broda as its sole members? = "cmima" only says that x1 is/are among the members of x2, does "selcmi" say= that its x2 are all the members of its x1? Open question.

m= u'o mi'e xorxes



You created a Lojban entry of {selcmi}= in jbovlaste:
http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/selcmi
= It might have been modified by someone else, and is now defined as follows:=
{x1 selcmi x2} =3Dca'e {x1 se cmima ro lo me x2 me'u e no lo na = me x2} 
That is to say, the meaning of {selcmi} is different= from {se cmima}, and {lo selcmi be lo broda} is the one and only set that = has lo broda as its sole members.

However, I would= prefer that the meaning of {selcmi} is the same as {se cmima}, and that {A= cmima A ce B} is implied by {A ce B selcmi A}. In that case, {lo selcmi be= lo broda} can be any set that has lo broda among its members. I am willing= to add a comment on it, but I'm not sure if I should obey the definition o= f jbovlaste, or rather keep it as an open question.

I will release the second version of the commentary in a few days.
<= /div>



Le samedi 24 mai 2014 11:53:33 = UTC+9, Pierre Abbat a =C3=A9crit :
On Frid= ay, May 23, 2014 21:45:35 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote: 
> (8)<&= lt; 
> An empty set is {lo selcmi be no da}, and an expression {= lo no broda} is 
> officially meaningless (see Section 
= > 3.1<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/gad= ri%3A+an+unofficial+commentary+from+a+logi 
> cal+point= +of+view&bl#Inner_quantification>[image: Edit Plugin:alink]. Th= is 
> implies that an empty set cannot be expressed with {lo'i/l= e'i/la'i}. 
> 
> 
> Arguably, lots of thin= gs can be described as "lo selcmi be no da", not just 
> the emp= ty set.  A spoon, for example, or anything else that is not a set,&nbs= p;
> will satisfy "ke'a selcmi no da". "lo selcmi be no da" works wel= l as a 
> description of the empty set in a universe of discours= e in which there are 
> only sets. (But then that is really the = only universe of discourse in which 
> one should mention sets a= t all, in my opinion.) 

That's why I entered "zilcmi". lo kunti= zilcmi cu na selcmi .iva'i lo kunti 
zilcmi cu selcmi noda 
mu'omi'e .pier. 
-- 
ve ka'a ro klaji la .romas. se j= maji 


i ja'aku= zo'u lo smuci cu ka'e selcmi zi'o ije lo kunti selcmi be zi'o cu na selcmi= zo'e iku'i ma'i lo selcmi saske naku zo'u lo kunti selcmi be zi'o cu selcm= i noda iki'ubo lo nu pilno lo fe zei sumti po zo selcmi cu sarcu lo nu skic= u lo smuni be zoi gy empty set gy

 

Le dimanche 25 mai 2014 01:23:16 UTC+9, clifford a =C3=A9crit&n= bsp;:
While it is im= portant to point out the word/object distinction, it is probably a lost cau= se in Lojban (as it is in English and logic textbooks).  Every time an= y systematic attempt is made to fix this distinction, the new expressions a= re collapsed together again: term, predicate, function,. argument, and so o= n.  One is tempted (for more reasons than just this) to go back to "no= un" and "verb" for the words.




I will fix the confusing= parts. If la xorxes approves the whole commentary, it will become indeed t= he important theoretical basis of gadri, and it should be included in the n= ext version of CLL, because the current gadri page of BPFK lacks explanatio= n on the relation between gadri and logic.
 

--
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+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_2264_14326327.1401008934893--