From: ucleaar <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
Message-Id: <59374.9603082039@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk>
To: sbelknap@uic.edu (Steven M. Belknap)
Subject: fuzzy lojban
Cc: lojbab@access.digex.net, cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Mar 96 20:39:07 +0000
Content-Length: 1600

> 1. Where exactly does it say in the BNF, YACC, Refgrammer, or cmavo
> definitions that crisp logic is being used? I don't see it. Other than 
> some vague statement that lojban is based on predicate logic, I don't 
> see *anywhere* where the set membership and logic functions are 
> specified.
> 2. Is the language specification as to logic membership function 
> ambiguous or merely unspecified? Is this agnosticism in the great fuzzy
> vs. crisp debate intentional?
> 3. How do we know that lojban logic isn't already fuzzy?

It would be a matter for the refgrammar, not the bnf/yacc, if fuzz were
to be described anywhere. As to whether Lojban is already fuzzy, how
can we tell? We certainly didn't have {jaa xi}.

> 4. Is <ni> a fuzzifying cmavo? (I first asked this question on 26 May 
> 1995 in my *first post* regarding fuzzy logic in lojban. This question 
> has never been answered!)
> 26 May 1995 Fuzzy Ship of Theseus
> mi cusku dihe
> >If there is no clear meaning for ni, perhaps implementing a rich syntax
> >for describing fuzzy sets with ni would be amusing and/or useful.
> >Perhaps the capability exists but is simply unrecognized.

{ni} does not have a properly established meaning. The refgrammar chapter
on abstractions skates over it as quickly as possible. The entire selmao
(NU - i.e. {ni}, {nu} & other words with same syntax) is pretty iffy
semantically, so I wouldn't invest too much in {ni}. However, I would
understand {ni} as a kind of scalarized {jei} - a {jei} with no upper
bound, glossable as "the extent to which....". I think this comports
with your idea.

And