Received: from mail-la0-f59.google.com ([209.85.215.59]:38592) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XaxBH-0008JK-Bp for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 18:33:51 -0700 Received: by mail-la0-f59.google.com with SMTP id gi9sf363586lab.14 for ; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 18:33:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=6VzFF+/VBjV3q9tELKD0RTJXd07o0mFwuNJ2kmiJ2mg=; b=Fcqd64JKsoZR7EAGTEeyTJMZB50RAxfD5TUWwGvCGLlOKwWozGtqgM+SGGY1nE/Na4 oERjUxraEhmF4x46/Ezh/Y5ZvueeeOyduOK5ZjhH0EjwVdLiBrvtEt/VMhmpayt8ELfy p+vmFTaSqJtNHGpTV4En3cZ9lCqQi7esTGXyi8XvR3sZN/VxOnHabcifa4X72o4Iy+/e p48t1Iz3k9ucaXB30terMTpIBZ7Cy+fH3Ex8STgPHS3641uGmvscBTfAAXqY1vBDQMgn BG/Q5S2JyRuBQOcx7OOuUY54UWHCqRXUesNLHNcBFugBCPR7hujAJ4Jd84Yhd1YwFEgs RCcw== X-Received: by 10.180.90.174 with SMTP id bx14mr46042wib.20.1412559215817; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 18:33:35 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.24.230 with SMTP id x6ls504243wif.0.canary; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 18:33:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.249.134 with SMTP id yu6mr3245288wjc.1.1412559215365; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 18:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-la0-x234.google.com (mail-la0-x234.google.com [2a00:1450:4010:c03::234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id rb5si1235191lbb.0.2014.10.05.18.33.35 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 05 Oct 2014 18:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::234; Received: by mail-la0-f52.google.com with SMTP id hz20so3589395lab.11 for ; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 18:33:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.4.98 with SMTP id j2mr5778075laj.77.1412559215230; Sun, 05 Oct 2014 18:33:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.25.229 with HTTP; Sun, 5 Oct 2014 18:33:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20141005234958.GD1974@gonzales> References: <20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales> <20140928152915.GB7320@gonzales> <20141004141407.GG32481@gonzales> <20141005153531.GA1974@gonzales> <20141005214350.GC1974@gonzales> <20141005234958.GD1974@gonzales> Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2014 22:33:35 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141ab443f86270504b712bd X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --089e0141ab443f86270504b712bd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > * Sunday, 2014-10-05 at 19:38 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas >: > > > > That's assuming that "li mo'e ko'a .e ko'e" =3D "li mo'e ko'a je mo'e > ko'e" =3D > > "li mo'e ko'a .e li mo'e ko'e". > > The second one is a parse error, Ah yes, operands connect with ".e", not "je", it's operators that connect with "je". > but yes, I have the other two being > equivalent. I wouldn't use anything like that as a derivation, though, > it's just that I have logical sumti connection working the same way > wherever the sumti occurs. Does "broda tu'a ko'a .e ko'e" become "ge broda tu'a ko'a gi broda tu'a ko'e" rather than "broda lo du'u ko'a .e ko'e co'e"? > My take is that sumti-6 indeed returns a term, but in the process of > parsing some logical operations may take effect. My way of thinking > about this is entangled with the details of the Haskell implementation > (monadic values), but I'll try to describe it in English! > > So {ro da} returns the variable which subsequent {da} will return, but > it also causes a quantification; {ko'a .e ko'e} returns ko'a resp ko'e, > but it also causes a fork in processing, each side getting one of the > return values ko'a and ko'e, with the two sides then logically > connected. For this to make sense, you need a way of interpreting these > logical operations of quantification and connection. They apply in the > obvious ways to propositions and to predicates, and I think we agree > that this is how things work when parsing a sumti at main-bridi level or > within a description. > Within a decription? I would say "lo broda be ko'a .e ko'e" is "zo'e noi broda ko'a .e ko'e", and not "ge lo broda be ko'a gi lo broda be ko'e". Similarly for LAhE, which I take to be "lo broda be" for some suitable "broda". With li-expressions I'm less sure, since I don't have a clear grasp of the interface between mekso and the ordinary part of the language. Is "cy du li cy" always true, for example? If I understand you correctly, you want special rules for what happens > when we parse a sumti with such logical information during the parsing > of a value: so rather than passing the actions of quantification and > connection up to the logic, they should be caught at the level of the > value and evaluated there. Right? > Rather, the logic of connections/quantification, which always applies to propositions, intervenes in the description of the value and doesn't escape the description. I imagine that could be made to work, but I worry that any such rules > for how the logical operations work on values would be rather arbitrary > and non-obvious. Having them pass up and operate in the usual logical > way seems much more natural to me. > For me the leading case is "tu'a", which must be opaque to logical operators. Something analogous happens with sumtcita. Do you consider > broda ca ro da > to mean something other than > ro da zo'u broda ca da > (which is how tersmu currently handles it)? > No, but that's because "ca" has scope over broda: broda ca ro da =3D ro da cabna lo nu broda =3D ro da zo'u da cabna lo nu broda =3D ro da zo'u broda ca da > > The presupposition is that when you use "lo plise" there's something yo= u > > are talking about, and that something is identified by their satisfying > the > > predicate "plise". Kinds may be one candidate interpretation, especiall= y > > with so little context. > > What is the logical content of this presupposition? Not actually > a matter of uniqueness, presumably? Some sort of maximality? I think so, yes. I don't want to insist too much on that because its maximality within the universe of discourse, not some absolute maximality as suggested by the examples in CLL. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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. --089e0141ab443f86270504b712bd Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Sun, Oct 5, 2014 at 8:49 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wr= ote:
* Sunday, 2014-10-05 at 19:38 -0300 = - Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambia= s@gmail.com>:
>
> That's assuming that "li mo'e ko'a .e ko'e" = =3D "li mo'e ko'a je mo'e ko'e" =3D
> "li mo'e ko'a .e li mo'e ko'e".

The second one is a parse error,

Ah= yes, operands connect with ".e", not "je", it's op= erators that connect with "je".=C2=A0
=C2=A0
but yes, I have the other two being
equivalent. I wouldn't use anything like that as a derivation, though,<= br> it's just that I have logical sumti connection working the same way
wherever the sumti occurs.

Does "broda= tu'a ko'a .e ko'e" become "ge broda tu'a ko'= a gi broda tu'a ko'e" rather than "broda lo du'u ko&#= 39;a .e ko'e co'e"?=C2=A0

=C2=A0
My take is that sumti-6 indeed returns a term, but in the process of=
parsing some logical operations may take effect. My way of thinking
about this is entangled with the details of the Haskell implementation
(monadic values), but I'll try to describe it in English!

So {ro da} returns the variable which subsequent {da} will return, but
it also causes a quantification; {ko'a .e ko'e} returns ko'a re= sp ko'e,
but it also causes a fork in processing, each side getting one of the
return values ko'a and ko'e, with the two sides then logically
connected. For this to make sense, you need a way of interpreting these
logical operations of quantification and connection. They apply in the
obvious ways to propositions and to predicates, and I think we agree
that this is how things work when parsing a sumti at main-bridi level or within a description.

Within a decripti= on? I would say "lo broda be ko'a .e ko'e" is "zo= 9;e noi broda ko'a .e ko'e", and not "ge lo broda be ko&#= 39;a gi lo broda be ko'e". Similarly for LAhE, which I take to be = "lo broda be" for some suitable "broda".

=
With li-expressions I'm less sure, since I don't have a = clear grasp of the interface between mekso and the ordinary part of the lan= guage. Is "cy du li cy" always true, for example?

<= /div>
If I understand you correctly, you want special rules for what happens
when we parse a sumti with such logical information during the parsing
of a value: so rather than passing the actions of quantification and
connection up to the logic, they should be caught at the level of the
value and evaluated there. Right?

Rathe= r, the logic of connections/quantification, which always applies to proposi= tions, intervenes in the description of the value and doesn't escape th= e description.=C2=A0

I imagine that could be made to work, but I worry that any such rules
for how the logical operations work on values would be rather arbitrary
and non-obvious. Having them pass up and operate in the usual logical
way seems much more natural to me.

For = me the leading case is "tu'a", which must be opaque to logica= l operators.

Something analogous happens with sumtcita. Do you consider
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 broda ca ro da
to mean something other than
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ro da zo'u broda ca da
(which is how tersmu currently handles it)?

=
No, but that's because "ca" has scope over broda:
<= div>
broda ca ro da
=3D ro da cabna lo nu broda=C2= =A0
=3D ro da zo'u da cabna lo nu broda
=3D ro da z= o'u broda ca da
=C2=A0
> The presupposition is that when you use "lo plise" there'= ;s something you
> are talking about, and that something is identified by their satisfyin= g the
> predicate "plise". Kinds may be one candidate interpretation= , especially
> with so little context.

What is the logical content of this presupposition? Not actually
a matter of uniqueness, presumably? Some sort of maximality?

I think so, yes. I don't want to insist too much on t= hat because its maximality within the universe of discourse, not some absol= ute maximality as suggested by the examples in CLL.

mu'o mi'e xorxes=C2=A0

--
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.
--089e0141ab443f86270504b712bd--