Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id UAA00632 for ; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 20:36:58 -0500 Message-Id: <199511280136.UAA00632@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 31F7D955 ; Mon, 27 Nov 1995 19:44:17 -0400 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: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Mon Nov 27 20:37:03 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU 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