From jlk@NETCOM.COM Sat Mar 6 22:45:19 2010 Date: Thu, 4 May 1995 08:33:20 -0700 From: Gerald Koenig Subject: Re: proposals To: Bob LeChevalier X-From-Space-Date: Thu May 4 21:35:09 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Message-ID: pc writes: > On "any" still once more, if all that is lacking is > conciseness, I should note that _pa_ is shorter than "any" by any > measure, and _CVhV_ro_, while longer, is about the same relative > length, given that lojban expressions tend to be longer than > English. Now, what is lacking -- except perhaps the will to use > logic effectively? I do lack the time and the political will to engage deeply in the discussion at this time, but I realized I have a statement about any in my files. This post was well received on logic-l by all but the person I opposed. >From jlk Sat Mar 18 18:59:19 1995 To: logic-l@bucknell.edu Subject: Re: "Anyone" and "Everyone" Hello; I have been reading this list since its inception and seldom post for lack of credentials. However I did participate in a long thread last fall on lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu with the subject of "any". Lojban is an artifical language based on predicate calculus. It has all the usual quantifiers and them some, but no word for "any". To say "any" in lojban it is necessary to write a predicate calculus form with the desired scopes and grouping and translate it verbatim into lojban. This results in long expressions which lack the nuances of English. The definitional and contextual pleiomorphism of "any" has so far blocked the creation of a word meaning English "any" in lojban. My approach to the meaning of "any" is to try to assign one of the distinct dictionary definitions to it as soon as I see it. There are three of the six in particular that I look for in translating to predicate calculus. They are: 1). one, no matter which, of more than two. 2). some, ....no matter how many, or what kind. 3).every The definition of every is: 3') each, individually and separately; each, and including all. To myself, I call these any(one), any(some) and any(every). These quotes are from Webster's third college edition,1988. Incidentally, the definition has been changed since 1973; the phrase "no matter which' has been substituted for "indiscrimminately" and "random", among other things. Michael Kremer said: "However: maybe my intuitions are corrupt, but I find it hard to read the supposed instance of a counterexample to Convention T in the way suggested. when it occurs on the RIGHT side of the "iff". It's different when the "iff" is on the left side, I think. The following seem different to me: The lottery isn't rigged if and only if any entrant has a chance to win. Any entrant has a chance to win if and only if the lottery isn't rigged." ------------------------------ GK resumes> To apply the above definitions to these statements I equate "any entrant" in sentence (1) to "any(every) entrant". I equate "any entrant" in sentence (2) to "any(one) entrant". Since any(one) means "one, no matter which.." it allows the substitution of the lottery rigger as a value. "The lottery rigger has a chance to win if and only if the lottery isn't rigged" is a false statement. He can win either way. MK> "The first seems to express a truth; about the second I'm, not sure. ???--Michael Kremer" GK> I agree. Gerald Koenig pc again: > 2)The fact still remains that the tensor system is inade- > quate (and so, I think, is the spatial vector system -- can we > really even box the compass in lojban, let alone lay out a real > direction (or full tensor in the mathematical sense) in three - > or four - space, as we would need to do to, say, give instruc- > tions to an anti-aircraft gunner?) We can -- and once did -- > have a tensor form that lays any appropriate metric down: "three > days," "seven feet," or whatever is needed I think the tense system is seriously flawed. There are two main problems. One is the incorporation of the obsolete Greek aorist definition of intervals. The other is the general detachment from the mathematical concept of vector. The lojban tense system needs to be kept in close correspondence to the universally used mathematical conventions. It is clear to me at least that the mathematical conventions were the origin of the lojban tense system. djer