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 HAA05075 for <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 07:48:36 -0500
Message-Id: <199602291248.HAA05075@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 98785666 ; Thu, 29 Feb 1996 7:11:23 -0500
Date:         Thu, 29 Feb 1996 07:10:41 -0500
Reply-To: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: fuzzy: use of <ni>, use of <jei>, need for <xoi>
To:         sbelknap@uic.edu
Cc:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 4046
X-From-Space-Date: Thu Feb 29 11:30:44 1996
X-From-Space-Address: -

>Is there some slick way that I can say:
>>
>>"The paint is fuzzily 2 of 5, where 0/5 is red and 5/5 is yellow."

Why does there have to be a "slick" way?  This is where we disagree.  We
require thatthere BE a way, and I am sure there is one. And it  probably will
not require more unstated conventions than your example did.  (English
has no convention that attaches meanings to most of your sentence and hence
it would be nonsense in most contexts.  Indeed, >I< cannot determine from
your example whether you want  5 discrete fuzzy sets where you have defined
only  the 0 set and the 5 set which really means that there need to be 6 %^)
or whether you are trying for a linear scale between red and yellowwhich is
infinitely divisible, so that someone could say that the paint is 3.14159 of 5.
In short, your English is ambiguous, and I am QUITE sure that if you expanded
the English to the point that it was clear, that there would be a comparable
or shorter way to say it in Lojban.  Personally, since there are many ways
to divide up semantic space, I am not sure that we WANT to commit ourselves
to one short form favoring one kind of interpretation of your English.

>2. How can cmavo be made fuzzy?
>
><da melbi 2/5 xoi be rozgu>
>
>The <xoi> is being applied to the <be> here. This is ungrammatic, I think.
>The idea is how can the degree of linkedness be modulated by a fuzzifier?
>I'm not suggesting an upheaval here, I am just wondering if there is some
>(not necessarily terse) construct which can do this.

Of course it is ungrammatical, since "xoi" has no defined grammar.  If you mean
And's proposal, it would be ungrammatical under that proposal as well.

I find no sense in the concept of fuzzy linkedness.  I find the deletion of
places with zi'o to be largely nonsense, and the only way I can interpret
what you wrote is that you want the FUZZY deletion of a place.  Sorry.
I can't understand.

>3. The issue of the slash cmavo, <fihu>. If I use it to say "2 of 5" as
>opposed to 2 divided by 5", it ought to be explicitly stated somewhere in
>the refgrammer that the use of the slash cmavo is not restricted.

It probably won't be so stated, since it is restricted.  It cannot mean
just any old thing.  As part of Mex, the default assumption is that it has
some sort of Mex function.  But there is no intent for Lojban to define what
the real grammar of mathematics is.  Fraction slashes have several uses
in the grammar of written mathematics, and Lojban abides by those conventions,
or at least does not contradict them.  Thus if a mathematician or fuzzy
logician might use 2/5 in notation and it would be clear, then it is permitted
in Lojban.  It might be necessary at the start of a lengthy discourse on
matters fuzzy that the fuzzician state the convention interpretation of the
slash in longer terms if he wants to be understood.

>I want to avoid the situation where 3/6 is interpreted as "one-half"
>instead of as "3 of 6" This would be wrong, as it would lose the
>granularity.


Lojban doesn't care.  Use it either way, but make it clear which ifthere is
any doubt.

>>Do find out what the fuzzys want.  Possibilities:
>>a) fuzzy set theory: xhas property F to degree 0<=n<=1 (presumably a
>>         _melipiny_ modifier on the predicate will do this within the present
>>        system, though something fancier may be wanted)  Truth values are
>>still
>>        binary here.
>
>Wouldn't <fiuhi> take care of this? Perhaps I am misunderstanding Cowan's
>point.
YOU are misunderstanding.  Irrespective of ALL proposals, none of which has
been approved, we are trying to define what the REQQIREMENTS are, and NOT
what the deisgn should be.  They are two entirely different things.  I do
not want to discuss any proposals until we clearly know what you think the
 boundsof the problem are.

And pc clearly would like the requirements put forth in more theroetical
termsusing the standard terminology, rather than looking at specific sentences,
which invariably get us looking at tress rather than the forest.

lojbab