From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Wed Dec 14 08:08:42 1994 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA09512 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 14 Dec 1994 08:08:38 -0500 Message-Id: <199412141308.AA09512@nfs2.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 0431; Wed, 14 Dec 94 08:08:27 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9121; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 08:07:57 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 08:06:29 EST Reply-To: bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: bob@GNU.AI.MIT.EDU Subject: Re: defaults To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu In-Reply-To: <199412140537.AAA00701@albert.gnu.ai.mit.edu> (message from Logical Language Group on Wed, 14 Dec 1994 00:32:20 -0500) Status: RO la lojbab cuska di'e All Lojban defaults are to some extent probable values for an ellipsis, at least in my opinion. I would be willing to be overridden on this by Cowan and/or pc, since I don't think it has been discussed ewxplicitly in design discussions. I think it has just been my implicit (default? %^) assumption. Yes. this has been my default assumption also. Without it being probabilistic, you have problems with tenses, numbers of entities, and so on. Think of the speakers of Lojban as computers in which the default values of their programs are fuzzy logic, probabilistic expressions rather than as single valued expressions. Of course, this desktop machine I am typing on would have a hard time with this sort of expression, but the light weight parallel processor I'm carrying around on the top of my neck does OK with this sort of default.