Received: from mail-la0-f58.google.com ([209.85.215.58]:34041) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZFgR3-0006iz-Ol for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 03:30:46 -0700 Received: by laef2 with SMTP id f2sf28628713lae.1 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 03:30:30 -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 :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=hHC8MHFeM3AU7LaiuKVrPlwDXUwQksAEmyJIw/7cmko=; b=sqolivnLpjwcH9dktbdlzPpJkJT+HgwkipL2f98L8/Bd9fSPPN7pURmq6IhJ5f4CaG NoXwpodAB15JWVbElM4lSpZzcHf+hHTeItTWOKycxFAtGSRf1g7lUKdDdiyvRCvJ5V3A +65BRMIYR+K6FL7pWew0jGNHUGtdRT7RLAKcKBNEkLwfWFqFxXkMtf8yEBHXZOqalZCI xWKqRtRjShcG5ZWOMQOhyIzpxH+7ArlAfYBDO06rrVBOImULUh98P6VB+Gd70WfzhfMl 6OZ24aODk+Msllb30ShOhKgO+NAId9W3+glIAtZljo8EwVuNgHCHRDS1BQAwxIa/sP5O LUsg== X-Received: by 10.180.206.84 with SMTP id lm20mr20627wic.13.1437042630646; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 03:30:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.24.103 with SMTP id t7ls105500wif.51.canary; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 03:30:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.175.36 with SMTP id bx4mr4542785wjc.1.1437042630160; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 03:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x235.google.com (mail-wi0-x235.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::235]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ec7si70202wib.3.2015.07.16.03.30.30 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Jul 2015 03:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of durka42@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::235 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::235; Received: by mail-wi0-x235.google.com with SMTP id mv11so11870704wic.1 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 03:30:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.82.167 with SMTP id j7mr17531751wjy.123.1437042630045; Thu, 16 Jul 2015 03:30:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from Alexs-MacBook-Air-2.local ([192.124.26.172]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e2sm12239234wjw.12.2015.07.16.03.30.28 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Jul 2015 03:30:28 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 12:30:39 +0200 From: Alex Burka To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: {tu'e...tu'u} in NU X-Mailer: Airmail Beta (309) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="55a787cf_4caa0228_64d6" X-Original-Sender: durka42@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of durka42@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::235 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=durka42@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-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --55a787cf_4caa0228_64d6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline So, to the question of that {gu} and {go} mean with more than 2 arguments, = we kind of find ourselves with tradeoff between logic and ease of use. First I get nervous extending them to >2-ary at all, since it becomes harde= r to reason about the negations ({gonai X gi Y} is XOR, but {gonai X gi Y g= i Z} is not, it's something strange instead -- and nobody can do truth tabl= es in their head, even fluent speakers). The interpretations you list are undoubtedly useful (particularly the "whic= h one out of these X alternatives"-connective is often asked for, though th= ere is a workable solution using {moi}). But they do not correspond to the = mathematical interpretation. For example, n-ary XOR is supposed to be true = when an odd number of the arguments are true, which is not obvious (or ofte= n useful in speech). Changing this can cause difficulties with composition,= for example logical transformations like De Morgans' laws will not work. A= nd {go ko'a gi ko'e gi ko'e [gi'i]} would be different from {go go ko'a gi = ko'e gi'i gi ko'i [gi'i]}, which is kind of annoying. Basically we would wa= nt to stop defining {go} as iff and {gonai} as xor, because people coming f= rom a math/logic background would have the wrong expectations. mu'o mi'e la durkavore On July 16, 2015 at 6:23:19 AM, guskant (gusni.kantu@gmail.com) wrote: Le mercredi 15 juillet 2015 21:29:50 UTC, xorxes a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0: On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:29 AM, guskant wrote: 3. sentences connected with forethought connective: {nu ju'e gi broda gi brode gi brodi gi brodo gi brodu} (CU [nu {CU <(=C2=B9ju'e gi=C2=B9) broda (=C2=B9[gi brode] [gi brodi] [gi b= rodo] [gi brodu]=C2=B9) GIhI> VAU} KEI] VAU)=C2=A0 (Forethought connectives of la zantufa-0.2 can connect more than three "sta= tements (not only sentences)", and {gi'i} is used as the elidible terminato= r GIhI, not as GIhA. See=C2=A0 http://mw.lojban.org/papri/zantufa_jonma%27o#lo_li.27erla.27i_jonma.27o for more info.) I like this use of "gi" because connected lists are by far more common than= embedded binary connectives. The meanings of "ge ... gi ... gi ..." and "g= a ... gi ... gi ..." are fairly obvious, but what are the proposed generali= zations for "go" and "gu"? Is "go" all true or all false? What are "gu", "s= e gu", "te gu", etc? mu'o mi'e xorxes La zantufa gives only syntactic structure, and I have not yet suggested the= semantic structure. From any approach, it is reasonable to interpret that = {gu A gi B gi C} has the same truth value as A. As for {se gu}, one of possible interpretations is grouping of binary trans= itive connective: that is, {segu A gi B gi C} =3D {segu (segu A gi B gi'i) = gi C} =3D {segu A gi (segu B gi C)}, and then the truth value of {segu A gi= B gi C} is the same as C. However, as you suggested, we may give another i= nterpretation that {se gu} draws the truth value of B, {te gu} draws the tr= uth value of C, and so on. I like the latter interpretation, because it can= not be easily represented by grouping system of binary connectives, and the= refore profits from the n-ary forethought connective system. For the same reason, I prefer the interpretation of "all true or all false"= for {go} and "one and only one of them is true" for {gonai} to the interpr= etation of grouping of binary connectives. =C2=A0 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Goog= le Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/loj= ban/NRUIud_OCj8/unsubscribe. To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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. --55a787cf_4caa0228_64d6 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline =
So, to the question of that {gu} and {go} mean wit= h more than 2 arguments, we kind of find ourselves with tradeoff between lo= gic and ease of use.

First I get nervous extending them to >2-ary at all, since= it becomes harder to reason about the negations ({gonai X gi Y} is XOR, bu= t {gonai X gi Y gi Z} is not, it's something strange instead -- and nobody = can do truth tables in their head, even fluent speakers).

The interpretations you = list are undoubtedly useful (particularly the "which one out of these X alt= ernatives"-connective is often asked for, though there is a workable soluti= on using {moi}). But they do not correspond to the mathematical interpretat= ion. For example, n-ary XOR is supposed to be true when an odd number of th= e arguments are true, which is not obvious (or often useful in speech). Cha= nging this can cause difficulties with composition, for example logical tra= nsformations like De Morgans' laws will not work. And {go ko'a gi ko'e gi k= o'e [gi'i]} would be different from {go go ko'a gi ko'e gi'i gi ko'i [gi'i]= }, which is kind of annoying. Basically we would want to stop defining {go}= as iff and {gonai} as xor, because people coming from a math/logic backgro= und would have the wrong expectations.

mu'o mi'e la durkavore

On July 16, 2015 at 6:23:19 AM, = guskant (gusni.kantu@gmail.com= ) wrote:

<= /div>


Le mercredi 15 juillet 2015 21:29:50 UTC, xorxes a =C3=A9crit :

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:29 AM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

3. sentences connected with forethought connective:

{nu ju'e gi broda gi brode gi brodi gi brodo gi brodu}
(CU [nu {CU <(=C2=B9ju'e gi=C2=B9) broda (=C2=B9[gi brode] [gi brod= i] [gi brodo] [gi brodu]=C2=B9) GIhI> VAU} KEI] VAU) 

(Forethought connectives of la zantufa-0.2 can connect more than three "statements (not only sentences)", and {gi'i} is used as the elidible terminator GIhI, not as GIhA. See 
for more info.)

I like this use of "gi" because connected lists are by far more common than embedded binary connectives. The meanings of "ge ... gi ... gi ..." and "ga ... gi ... gi ..." are fairly obvious, but what are the proposed generalizations for "go" and "gu"? Is "go" all true or all false? What are "gu", "se gu", "te gu", etc?

mu'o mi'e xorxes




La zantufa gives only syntactic structure, and I have not yet suggested the semantic structure. From any approach, it is reasonable to interpret that {gu A gi B gi C} has the same truth value as A.

As for {se gu}, one of possible interpretations is grouping of binary transitive connective: that is, {segu A gi B gi C} =3D {segu (segu A gi B gi'i) gi C} =3D {segu A gi (segu B gi C)}, and then the truth value of {segu A gi B gi C} is the same as C. However, as you suggested, we may give another interpretation that {se gu} draws the truth value of B, {te gu} draws the truth value of C, and so on. I like the latter interpretation, because it cannot be easily represented by grouping system of binary connectives, and therefore profits from the n-ary forethought connective system.

For the same reason, I prefer the interpretation of "all true or all false" for {go} and "one and only one of them is true" for {gonai} to the interpretation of grouping of binary connectives.
 
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/l= ojban/NRUIud_OCj8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@g= ooglegroups.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.

--
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.
--55a787cf_4caa0228_64d6--