Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tKDCL-0000ZUC; Tue, 28 Nov 95 01:42 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id ECA25897 ; Tue, 28 Nov 1995 0:42:57 +0100 Date: Mon, 27 Nov 1995 18:40:48 -0500 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: fuzzy truth X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 890 Lines: 27 la djan cusku di'e > Diffidently I point out that this is another possible application for > the Dreaded Subscript: > > mi ja'a xipimu clani > ja'a xipimuku mi clani Does that mean that {ja'a xino} will mean the same as {na}? I still don't think that ja'a/na is the place for fractional truth values. (It is the right place for showing the robustness of the given truth value, which is a different matter, and has to do with how close the situation is to having the opposite truth value.) On the other hand, you could mention {je'u xipimu} for the fuzzies. Bob Chassell also suggested {ju'o xipimu} for degrees of certainty, and there would also be {la'a xipimu} for probabilities. > Unless I hear sound objections (as opposed to loud howls) I'll write this > into the text paper. auuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu (That's a howl, not an attitudinal.) Jorge