From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jul 19 10:44:57 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:44:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G3G69-0000cM-VT for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:44:38 -0700 Received: from web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.122]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G3G68-0000cF-2A for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:44:37 -0700 Received: (qmail 34274 invoked by uid 60001); 19 Jul 2006 17:44:34 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=38GeRXzPub/T9L/N+U647manbt7BY0n6NKjiRsQ7b0xi0VLFgwse9fz8OTJEPHjbd6pwnLtGv3gblLFdeyy4wC4SBeG6CCvOhpVN82kMEj2bFV+F2JPsEU1JXYAUylxBq3HwsGkvxP7/3CeTJP4g886lEBGi1AyGXljgt4QlOrM= ; Message-ID: <20060719174434.34272.qmail@web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.215.206] by web81306.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:44:34 PDT Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 10:44:34 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20060719172345.42802.qmail@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 12250 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Well, less theses about collectivity and more meaning postulates about predicates (and relations). Different expressions just behave differently in what lower level behavior of a group are to count as giving a certainproperty to the group as a whole: some can't every be c-true (is a student), some can't be d-true (form a line), some sum up the activities of members of a group -- sometimes of the same sort as for the group as a whole (scored a goal), sometimes not (won a match) -- some have no intermediaries (number 20). And all possible combinations in between. We have to pick the right function for a given predicate, but the semantics here is completely gneral -- not applied. --- John E Clifford wrote: > > > --- Jorge Llamb�as wrote: > > > On 7/19/06, John E Clifford wrote: > > > I guess I don't see why d-truth implies c-truth; that was certainly > > > not the intention. Where did I slip up? > > > > I'm not saying it does. I can't really tell from the definitions whether > > it does or it doesn't, it would depend on what the n-place > > functions I(P) are. > > The intention was that d-true and c-true were independent, that is a certain simple sentence > could > be one or the other or both. So far as I can tell it works out that way. If each of the > individuals among those referred to has the property then the sentence about it is d-true, if > the > individuals together have the property then the sentemce is c-true. Consider "carries > furniture" > applied to three movers: each of them carries a chair say, one pair carries a table, a slightly > different pair carries a bureau and the third pair carries a bookcase, then they all three carry > the bed. Clearly, each of them carries furniture (the chairs) and clearly the three of them do > too -- independently of the fact that each of them does. Now, insofar as carrying furniture is > concerned, does all the pairwise cases add anything? Would they if they did not all carry the > bed? Would they if no one carried a piece by himself? Would they if one person did not take > part > in the pairwise moving? It seems to me that "carried furniture" is pretty broad and does not go > into details about how it was done, so that d and c seem enough. On the other hand, the > functions > are set up to take the numbers between 1 and all together into account (though that was not why > the intermediate numbers are there), so a finer analysis is possible. I suppose we could expand > the notion of "collective" by spelling out the various ways it could be satisfied, though I am > not > sure we would ever get a totally acceptable list of all the combinations that count -- any > combination of individual and subgroup participation that encompassed all eventually seems to be > a > minimal requirement, I suppose. At this point,I don't see the need to do it, however. > > > What I'm saying is this: If d-true implies c-true, then there is no point > > in defining "true" as "d-true or c-true". If d-true does not imply c-true, > > then there are cases that I would want to be true, but which are neither > > d-true, nor c-true, so defining true as d-true or c-true is not enough. > > OK, but it does not seem to imply in that way and it does not appear that, as the functions are > set up and intended, there are any gaps. That is, HOW they get the property together is not > mentioned, only that they do. > > > An example: > > > > The boys, who were wearing hats and carrying chairs, formed a line. > > > > Each of the boys wears a hat, so "the boys wear hats" is d-true, > > and threfore it is true. > > All the boys form a line together, so "the boys form a line" is c-true > > and therefore it is true. > > The boys carry chairs in pairs, therefore "the boys carry chairs" is > > neither d-true nor c-true, but I still want it to be plain true. > > So far as I can see, this is (in the present system) simply c-true: the chairs collectively were > there and now are here and the agency of the change was the boys together somehow. > > > If the boys carrying chairs in pairs makes "the boys carry chairs" c-true, > > then surely the boys carrying chairs individually must make it c-true as well. > > I agree, in this case. But it could be c-true without their carrying them individually (as in > your example above), so it could be c-true and not d-true. On the other hand,"the students wore > hats" is d-true but not c-true (on a normal reading) (I suppose there are variant readings that > could make it c-true but not d-true and one that could make it both). Long discussions about > men > biting dogd (or conversely) suggest that it is often sufficient just to take collective > readings, > although the more specific versions are sometimes interesting and even important. I'll want to > make allowances for that somewhere eventually, presumably as theses about "collectively" but I > don't see that I need them for the present issue. > > > If not, then the definition of c-true would seem to be just true but > > not d-true, > > and the introduction of the I(P) functions doesn't add anything that I can see. > > > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org > > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.