Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.250 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.91.250;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Mathy person interested in concept, unsure where to begin.
References: <5f6a7dec-3c5d-477d-bd73-5bd69726b713@googlegroups.com> <1411515475.42591.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <1465cea2-41be-48ac-8f02-934d4a4b904b@googlegroups.com> <88e103a9-04e1-4739-97c2-f37fa457e4a8@googlegroups.com> <90cb23e1-0ed7-4b3c-9626-c31c4c8a8076@googlegroups.com> <CAO7bV+ivxnfLe8WfvKnhKXS5NPgu5Eex=HdrD=X=6n9MTtFobQ@mail.gmail.com> <CANbwn5AeGqz+x0os-=21CFxVv8b=dRSL85ff0ddvHx9-nf8SsQ@mail.gmail.com> <1411567412.85594.YahooMailNeo@web181102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAO7tK2dnODduDUJ9HpiUbomobj80-xMggQ72kjwpYOSNwhQ3Mw@mail.gmail.com> <1411570426.39518.YahooMailNeo@web181106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAO7tK2dYH5RMOrhwdn1_gaefsT1U6FLkypwVNhgb5-TyU-Wemw@mail.gmail.com> <1411574508.45917.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAO7tK2cMv8A74cb5YcSXte1UCBADWE_MJoRZAzvWRhq_AVhOLQ@mail.gmail.com> <1411584109.21511.YahooMailNeo@web181104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <CAO7tK2faAMD6Yk-iqC+899MhFnBrVv7O3UP0SG=SSe=V14O2eg@mail.gmail.com>
From: "'John E. Clifford' via lojban" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2faAMD6Yk-iqC+899MhFnBrVv7O3UP0SG=SSe=V14O2eg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <2E5BA45B-ACFB-46EA-8C84-881C50F095FE@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:16:41 -0500
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary=Apple-Mail-7779F4D6-C905-4A7B-A19D-84BB09411F1B
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam_score: -0.4
X-Spam_score_int: -3
X-Spam_bar: /

--Apple-Mail-7779F4D6-C905-4A7B-A19D-84BB09411F1B
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Well, in theory in general, every sentence is derived from a formula.  The =
question is whether we can automatically derive that formula from the sente=
nce. The best (only?) way to test this is to see whether the formula team 2=
 derives from a sentence supplied by team 1 is the same formula that team 1=
 used to derive the sentence in the first place.  A weaker test is to see w=
hether the automatically derived formula corresponds to the intuitive readi=
ng of the sentence as provided by proficient speakers who re logically soph=
isticated, etc.

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 24, 2014, at 14:04, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote=
:

>=20
>=20
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:41 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <lojban@goo=
glegroups.com> wrote:
> No, the worry is the opposite: whether every sentence of Lojban has a uni=
que (up to equivalence, say) representation in logic which can be automatic=
ally derived. =20
>=20
> Right. As I said:=20
>=20
> Logic -> Lojban    trivial
> Lojban -> Logic   very much non-trivial
> =20
>=20
> Your project is indeed trivial until you throw in all the qualifiers: col=
loquial, compact, ergonomic (I have no idea what that means for a sentence,=
 but it seems popular these days), unambiguous, etc.=20
>=20
> Except for "unambiguous", I agree. The automatic translation from FOPL to=
 Lojban is unambiguous, but usually not colloquial/compact/ergonomic.
>=20
>  Then we clearly need a full set (whatever tat means -- enough for all th=
e cases we know of or can think of, I suppose) of transformations, not just=
 the "read it as written" (with a few easy additons) version that is trivia=
l.
>=20
> Right, that's very much a requisite for the Lojban -> Logic direction, an=
d necessary also to achieve colloquial/compact/ergonomic in the Logic -> Lo=
jban part.
> =20
> By way of connecting all this up, the formula derived from a sentence is =
the same (up to equivalence, of course -- but maybe not even with that cond=
ition) as the formula from which the sentence is derived.  That is the test=
 of the logicality of the language. =20
>=20
> The formula derived from the sentence derived from a formula is that same=
 formula. That part is trivial. The problem are the sentences not derived f=
rom any formula (or not yet known to be derived from any formula).
>=20
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>=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=
 email 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.

--=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.

--Apple-Mail-7779F4D6-C905-4A7B-A19D-84BB09411F1B
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8

<html><head></head><body bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF"><div>Well, in theory in genera=
l, every sentence is derived from a formula. &nbsp;The question is whether =
we can automatically derive that formula from the sentence. The best (only?=
) way to test this is to see whether the formula team 2 derives from a sent=
ence supplied by team 1 is the same formula that team 1 used to derive the =
sentence in the first place. &nbsp;A weaker test is to see whether the auto=
matically derived formula corresponds to the intuitive reading of the sente=
nce as provided by proficient speakers who re logically sophisticated, etc.=
<br><br>Sent from my iPad</div><div><br>On Sep 24, 2014, at 14:04, Jorge Ll=
amb=C3=ADas &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com">jjllambias@gmail.co=
m</a>&gt; wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div><di=
v dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"=
>On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:41 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <span dir=3D=
"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojb=
an@googlegroups.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quo=
te" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"=
><div><div style=3D"color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaN=
eue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"=
><div><span>No, the worry is the opposite: whether every sentence of Lojban=
 has a unique (up to equivalence, say) representation in logic which can be=
 automatically derived. &nbsp;</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><b=
r></div><div>Right. As I said:&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>Logic -&gt; L=
ojban &nbsp; &nbsp;trivial</div><div>Lojban -&gt; Logic &nbsp; very much no=
n-trivial</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_q=
uote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1e=
x"><div><div style=3D"color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:Helvetic=
aNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;font-size:12p=
t"><div><span>Your project is indeed trivial until you throw in all the qua=
lifiers: colloquial, compact, ergonomic (I have no idea what that means for=
 a sentence, but it seems popular these days), unambiguous, etc. </span></d=
iv></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Except for "unambiguous", I=
 agree. The automatic translation from FOPL to Lojban is unambiguous, but u=
sually not colloquial/compact/ergonomic.</div><div><br></div><blockquote cl=
ass=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;p=
adding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-f=
amily:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif=
;font-size:12pt"><div><span>&nbsp;Then we clearly need a full set (whatever=
 tat means -- enough for all the cases we know of or can think of, I suppos=
e) of transformations, not just the "read it as written" (with a few easy a=
dditons) version that is trivial. </span></div></div></div></blockquote><di=
v><br></div><div>Right, that's very much a requisite for the Lojban -&gt; L=
ogic direction, and necessary also to achieve colloquial/compact/ergonomic =
in the Logic -&gt; Lojban part.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><blockquote class=3D"=
gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-=
left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:H=
elveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;font-s=
ize:12pt"><div><span>By way of connecting all this up, the formula derived =
from a sentence is the same (up to equivalence, of course -- but maybe not =
even with that condition) as the formula from which the sentence
 is derived. &nbsp;</span><span style=3D"font-size:12pt">That is the test o=
f the logicality of the language. &nbsp;</span></div></div></div></blockquo=
te><div><br></div><div>The formula derived from the sentence derived from a=
 formula is that same formula. That part is trivial. The problem are the se=
ntences not derived from any formula (or not yet known to be derived from a=
ny formula).</div><div><br></div><div>mu'o mi'e xorxes</div><div><br></div>=
</div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--Apple-Mail-7779F4D6-C905-4A7B-A19D-84BB09411F1B--