Message-Id: <199710010058.TAA28633@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Date: Tue Sep 30 19:58:35 1997
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: JORGE JOAQUIN LLAMBIAS <jorge@INTERMEDIA.COM.AR>
Subject:      Re: "Nearly Correct" (was New thread, anyone?)
X-To:         lojban <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 800
X-From-Space-Date: Tue Sep 30 19:58:35 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

 >"Almost Correct"
>
>This seems symmetrical to me: the near-thing is the same as
>the correct-thing, and either could serve as the tertau.

But the near-thing is not the same as the correct-thing! It is
close to it, but not the same. "Almost correct" is not a kind
of correct, it is a kind of non-correct. It is near the border,
but on the negative side. Near the border on the positive
side would be "barely correct".

 >That leaves two choices:
>
>    jbidra j1=d1  d2  d3     j2=d4 , and
>    drajbi d1=j1  d4=j2  j3  d3

I get a different one:

drajbi  j1  [j2=d1]  j3=d2  d3  d4
             x1 is almost correct in property x2 in situation x3 by standard
x4

We had a discussion about "almost" and "barely" during the fuzzy
logic debate. I don't remember it coming to anything, though.

Jorge