From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:45:45 2010 Reply-To: Jorge Llambias Sender: Lojban list Date: Sun Dec 3 16:21:17 1995 From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: and fuzzy models X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu, jorge@minerva.phyast.pitt.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Sun Dec 3 16:21:17 1995 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Message-ID: <8XLVAg5Jb2E.A.XYF.Zu0kLB@chain.digitalkingdom.org> la stivn cusku di'e > A challenge to all: produce a gismu which can not be considered to be fuzzy. There are some (e.g. dugri, tenfa, sinso, tanjo) for which it wouldn't be very easy to consider them fuzzy. > le rozgu pafi'uci xoi barda le ka melbi kei le mi'o ckilu > > The rose is fuzzily 1/3 big in property beauty on our (predefined) scale. Rather: The rose is big in property beauty compared to our scale. (truth value of that sentence = 1/3) The x3 of {barda} is not for a scale, but for something with which to compare the x1. You would be saying that the rose is big in beauty compared with how big our scale is in beauty. > If none had them we could deal with standards using some other formalism. > Among other benefits, such as regularizing all gismu, this would allow us > some more options in expressing fuzzy sets. Right. And what's more, the mechanism for that is already there. > If the color was part-way between two colors, could we define the sumti > place structure to have a scale sumti, say at X2? > > le rozgu refi'umu xoi xunrypelxu le mi'o ckilu I don't think so, but you can always use {ci'u}: le rozgu cu xunrypelxu ci'u le mi'o ckilu The rose is red-yellow on our scale. > The rose is 2/5 fuzzily red-yellow on our scale (that is, a more reddish > shade of orange, in the American English color idiom). Then what you want is probably: le rozgu cu xunrypelxu sela'u li refi'umu ci'u le mi'o ckilu The rose is red-yellow in quantity 2/5 on our scale. I don't think you are talking about fractional truth values here. > leti rozgu pafi'uci xoi melbi leta rozgu fo le mi'o ckilu > This rose is fuzzily 1/3 more beautiful than that rose on our scale. > > leta rozgu pafi'uci xoi melbi letu tujli le ka sumne kei le mi'o ckilu > that rose is fuzzily 1/3 more pleasant than yonder tulip in odor on our scale. But the place structure of {melbi} is not "x1 is more beautiful than x2". The x2 of melbi is the person for whom the x1 is beautiful. It seems to me that you are not using {xoi} for truth values, either, but rather for values on a scale. For that there is {sela'u}. > Either every gismu should have both a standard sumti and a scale sumti or > no gismu should have them. The current seemingly random position and > existence of standard sumti makes no sense. I agree completely. Notice that you can always add a standard with {ma'i} and a scale with {ci'u}. > If all gismu had them, then one > could say stuff like: > > X1 X2...X(N-2) by standard X(N-1) on scale X(N) You can already say that: X1 X2 X3... ma'i ci'u Jorge