Return-Path: Received: from kejal-9101.pc by xiron with uucp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0omoQ2-0000osC; Tue, 12 Oct 93 20:25 EET Received: from kruuna.helsinki.fi by xiron with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0omo2V-0000osC; Tue, 12 Oct 93 20:01 EET Received: from charon2-gw.pc.Helsinki.FI by kruuna.helsinki.fi with SMTP id AA22075 (5.65c8/IDA-1.4.4 for ); Tue, 12 Oct 1993 20:00:28 +0200 Received: From HYLKN1/WORKQUEUE2 by charon2-gw.pc.Helsinki.FI via Charon 3.4 with IPX id 100.931012195903.288; 12 Oct 93 19:59:40 +0200 Message-Id: Received: From FINHUTC.hut.fi by charon2-gw.pc.Helsinki.FI via Charon 3.4 with SMTP id 102.931012195853.256; 12 Oct 93 19:59:03 +-02-01 Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 9214; Tue, 12 Oct 93 20:00:07 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9212; Tue, 12 Oct 1993 20:00:02 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 5476; Tue, 12 Oct 1993 18:59:25 +0100 Date: Tue, 12 Oct 1993 13:57:00 EDT Reply-To: protin@usl.com Sender: vilva From: Art Protin Subject: Re: Lean Lujvo and fat gismu X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1777 Lines: 49 John Cowan writes: > It is this sort of fuzziness which caused the Lojban engineers > to remove the comparative places from many gismu. As Art Protin > recently posted, Loglan "groda" historically meant "x1 is bigger > than x2 by standard x3" and "x1 is big" was interpreted as "x1 > is bigger than something-unspecified". (Institute Loglan has > never had an equivalent of "zo'e"). > This gimmick breaks down in many cases, though: "x1 is not big" > obviously cannot be so rewritten. I am afraid I don't see this. Either of the two forms seem to make sense: X [is] not bigger-than [something-unspecified] and X [is] reverse-relation bigger-than [something-unspecified]. (or reordered for English speakers "[something-unspecified] [is] bigger-than X"). Also, the "heap paradox" seems very lame. A heap is not precisely defined and then a formal proof fails because of this imprecision does not strike me as a really interesting paradox. The proof/paradox falls apart if I define a heap as a gravitationally stable aggregate of items such that there is no 2 available dimensional view that permits precise counting of the constituent items. Then the heap ceases to be a heap when the constituent items can be counted either because enough have been removed or those items have been rearranged to distinguish each item. The cleanup of the definition of small is more difficult, but again a precise proof with imprecise terms should always be suspect. Any kind of nonsense can be shown with those. thank you all, Arthur Protin Arthur Protin STANDARD DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly those of the author and are in no way indictative of his employer, customers, or this installation.