Received: from mail-wg0-f59.google.com ([74.125.82.59]:62183) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XffHy-0002Ql-Kg for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:28:12 -0700 Received: by mail-wg0-f59.google.com with SMTP id m15sf238018wgh.4 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:27:59 -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=OsibeLSDtbWA5pEAmWHObo9stlX3vQzApuLXXdRrUXA=; b=aDxeQncrEMUEJkPdAdEJTskDTldD8jPOpa88lxJc/vIMalc4Cl+EN0uwCora+LAQX2 j6Hu0CaH0u87N4Q8IX6ehxe5YnZEkcVl3MCWMNrmX4cPd+9NMmQL5F3W/dWMGz/0IPOg r1jhkKruS/2qtTKjixo1INuDq9itmMD70U7h/Ot8i8cXcLQwmcOi8gV74MWMDapBe+EN dibxJBdnz2Y0rkbBIqs4mVy99SJ5G57G6PibIuRzXJy3SQ4yOH8uoMhNIl632FFvsYSQ 0HcDgl4JHAnYlqWI/x4kf64eIFfzrQ4jsLTYt0MEMzLloZDYQDtBDboFvmtmPh49FGwI GRnQ== X-Received: by 10.180.209.100 with SMTP id ml4mr31252wic.3.1413682079761; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:27:59 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.102.72 with SMTP id fm8ls141724wib.4.gmail; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:27:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.242.36 with SMTP id wn4mr13273wjc.4.1413682079263; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22b.google.com (mail-wi0-x22b.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id h1si256260wib.0.2014.10.18.18.27.59 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b; Received: by mail-wi0-f171.google.com with SMTP id em10so4607493wid.4 for ; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:27:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.207.77 with SMTP id lu13mr9738344wic.12.1413682079161; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.217.105.201 with HTTP; Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:27:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20141018233648.GA29040@gonzales> References: <20141012173533.GG23876@gonzales> <20141014010742.GF19061@gonzales> <20141015005542.GC3713@gonzales> <20141018004531.GE20049@gonzales> <20141018180946.GF20049@gonzales> <20141018233648.GA29040@gonzales> Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 22:27:59 -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 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22b 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=001a11c3a16a2762e50505bc82ce X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --001a11c3a16a2762e50505bc82ce Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > Right, so we come back to the question of whether the underlying logic > has functions. If we declare that it's purely relational, then all the > constructs which have the form of functions - operators, qualifiers, > non-logical connectives, and I guess also {jo'i} (this list should be > exhaustive) - must actually translate to relations, so it's natural that > they should introduce sub-bridi. > > It's certainly true that purely relational logics are easier to reason > about, and that there's no loss in expressivity when eliminating > functions in favour of relations. > > But it still feels very counter-intuitive to me that these things which > look like functions shouldn't just be functions. > There's no doubt that they are functions, the question is whether they are primitive or derived. And if we take them as primitive, the strange thing is that they form a small closed class, so you could not do with most functions what you could do with them. Maybe it's worth considering utility again briefly, in this rather pure > case of operators. Mex may be an obscure part of the language, but I can > think of examples where having operators be functions gives useful > results; e.g. > > li no pi'i mo'e ro namcu du li no > ("cu" before "du" is so often forgotten, that it might be worth considering moving "du" to its own selma'o with the grammar of "cu du". One drawback though would be that we'd no longer have "lo du", or at least it would require additional changes.) With the proposal to merge VUhU with JOI that would simplify to: li no pi'i ro namcu cu du li no mex is supposed to make mathematical expressions more compact, but in some cases it makes them less compact. > li xy mleca li re .e se ni'i bo ci > > (I'm also assuming here that {li} doesn't introduce a bridi.) > BTW, do we know what the expansion of "broda .i jek tag bo brode" is? Is it something like "broda .i jek brode .i je lo du'u/nu broda cu brodi lo du'u/nu brode" with a suitable brodi? The first one is also true with the relational semantics, but I'm not > sure it expresses the same thing (I'd translate it as "the thing which > is 0 times anything is 0", so the fact that such a thing exists becomes > a presupposition rather than a statement). It's odd however to have to read "li no pi'i mo'e ro namcu cu du li no" differently than "lo pilji be li no bei ro namcu cu du li no" > Is there a reason not to declare that {na ku zo'u tu'e broda .i brode} > is equivalent to {na ku zo'u ge broda gi brode}? > In natlangs we have the option of not specifying what the logical connection between clauses is, e.g.: "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me". That's four clauses with their connections left up to context. I'm not sure we should eliminate the possibility of doing things like that in Lojban by forcing an obligatory conjunctive interpretation. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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. --001a11c3a16a2762e50505bc82ce Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Sat, Oct 18, 2014 at 8:36 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wr= ote:

Right, so we come back to the question of whether the underlying log= ic
has functions. If we declare that it's purely relational, then all the<= br> constructs which have the form of functions - operators, qualifiers,
non-logical connectives, and I guess also {jo'i} (this list should be exhaustive) - must actually translate to relations, so it's natural tha= t
they should introduce sub-bridi.

It's certainly true that purely relational logics are easier to reason<= br> about, and that there's no loss in expressivity when eliminating
functions in favour of relations.

But it still feels very counter-intuitive to me that these things which
look like functions shouldn't just be functions.
<= br>
There's no doubt that they are functions, the question is= whether they are primitive or derived. And if we take them as primitive, t= he strange thing is that they form a small closed class, so you could not d= o with most functions what you could do with them.

Maybe it's worth considering utility again briefly, in this rather pure=
case of operators. Mex may be an obscure part of the language, but I can think of examples where having operators be functions gives useful
results; e.g.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 li no pi'i mo'e ro namcu du li no

("cu" before "du" is so often forgotte= n, that it might be worth considering moving "du" to its own selm= a'o with the grammar of "cu du". One drawback though would be= that we'd no longer have "lo du", or at least it would requi= re additional changes.) With the proposal to merge VUhU with JOI that would= simplify to:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 li no pi'i = ro namcu cu du li no

mex is supposed to make mathe= matical expressions more compact, but in some cases it makes them less comp= act.
=C2=A0
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 li xy mleca li re .e se ni'i bo ci

(I'm also assuming here that {li} doesn't introduce a bridi.)

BTW, do we know what the expansion of "= broda .i jek tag bo brode" is? Is it something like "broda .i jek= brode .i je lo du'u/nu broda cu brodi lo du'u/nu brode" with = a suitable brodi?

The first one is also true with the relational semantics, but I'm not sure it expresses the same thing (I'd translate it as "the thing w= hich
is 0 times anything is 0", so the fact that such a thing exists become= s
a presupposition rather than a statement).

It's odd however to have to read "li no pi'i mo'e ro namc= u cu du li no" differently than "lo pilji be li no bei ro namcu c= u du li no"
=C2=A0
Is there a reason n= ot to declare that {na ku zo'u tu'e broda .i brode}
is equivalent to {na ku zo'u ge broda gi brode}?
<= br>
In natlangs we have the option of not specifying what the log= ical connection between clauses is, e.g.: "Fool me once, shame on you;= fool me twice, shame on me". That's four clauses with their conne= ctions left up to context. I'm not sure we should eliminate the possibi= lity of doing things like that in Lojban by forcing an obligatory conjuncti= ve interpretation.=C2=A0

mu'o mi'e xorxes<= /div>

--
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.
--001a11c3a16a2762e50505bc82ce--