Message-Id: <m0qtKhW-00005XC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 7 Oct 1994 19:57:08 +0100
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: admirers of 50% of symphonies
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Thu, 06 Oct 94 21:53:02 EDT.)
Content-Length: 1568
Lines: 34

Jorge:
> > (1) Ey [y is a set containing 50% of B's symphonies]
> >     & [Az [z is a member of y] Ax [x admires z] -> I met z]
> >
> > I meant "be pisuho **lo** pimu lei Z".
> > But this doesn't work. I want the additional meaning that 50% of B's
> > symphonies are such that I met lei admirers of either of them. A context
> > in which I met admirers of #2 & admirers of #2 fits what I mean, but
read:                          #2               #4
[I really fucked up that message]
> > not a context in which I met only admirers of #2.
>
> This description doesn't match your pred.calc. form. If there are no
> admirers of one of the symphonies, the context you want to exclude is
> allowed there and in the Lojban form. If none of the symphonies have
> zero admirers, then the Lojban form doesn't allow that context either,
> just like your pred.calc.

Hmm. You're right, I think. I can't even do my meaning in pred calc.
let alone Lojban. I want "I met every admirer of some symphonies,
and these admired symphonies constitute 50% of B's total".

> I can guess at your objection. I think we can define {piro lo pimu lei zy}
> to be different from {pimu lei zy}. The first one has one level less of
> non-specificity, so that admirers of that would all have to admire the same
> thing, while admirers of the second are allowed to admire different things.
> What do you think?

I think that it may be possible to stipulate such a rule for Lojban,
but that it doesn't follow from the present semantics as I (obviously
in a most confused way) understand them.

---
And