Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 3 Nov 1993 16:55:46 -0500 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Wed, 3 Nov 1993 16:55:27 -0500 Message-Id: <199311032155.AA06482@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 1461; Wed, 03 Nov 93 16:55:17 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 4355; Wed, 03 Nov 93 16:52:34 EDT Date: Wed, 3 Nov 1993 20:11:12 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: TECH: more thoughts on zi'o X-To: lojban@cuvma.BITNET To: Erik Rauch In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 03 Nov 93 13:30:12 GMT.) Status: RO X-Status: X-From-Space-Date: Wed Nov 3 20:11:12 1993 X-From-Space-Address: @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET > zi'o is a place-filler used to indicate that there is nothing in that > place. Not so: it is used to indicate that the place doesn't exist. > This is prima facie logically problematic. P(a,b,c,d,zi'o) cannot be taken > to mean "there is no e such that P(a,b,c,d,e)", In fact P(a,b,c,d,ziho) is true independently of whether there is no e such that P(a,b,c,d,e) or there is some e such that P(a,b,c,d,e) > It seems to me that if a place can be sensibly zi'o-ed, it doesn't belong > in the definition at all. Ziho changes the meaning in an only partly guessable way. What we shd be deciding is not whether a place is zihoable (every place is) but whether it is likely to be zihoed very very often (assuming it gets zihoed when it should). In this case there is a good Zipfean case for altering the place structure to exclude the oft-zihoed place from the definition. ---- And KO JBOBANPEHO