X-Digest-Num: 273
Message-ID: <44114.273.1523.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Nov 1999 07:46:18 PST
From: "Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: 3 dogs, 2 men, many arguments
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 1523
Content-Length: 966
Lines: 33


> >What you call mapping, at least in some cases, is the
> >job of the quantifier. The quantifier is not a part
> >of the set definition.
>
>Isn't it? What if I say "let set A include all the dogs that bark at
>night",

The set of dogs that bark at night does include all dogs
that bark at night. Every set includes all of its members,
so "all" doesn't really add anything to the definition.

>or "let set B be 3 fast cars".

That doesn't define set B, there are many sets of 3 fast
cars.

In any case, what exactly are you proposing? How would
you say "Everybody loves somebody" in your version of
Lojban? Do you need an extension of the grammar?
Would you introduce a whole class of new cmavo to
cover the mappings? Would it be an open class?
You only gave a few examples of possible mappings,
but there are an infinite number of them, right?
Is there something that you could do with those that
can't be done with Lojban as is?

co'o mi'e xorxes