From sentto-44114-2117-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Wed Mar 01 20:20:44 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 26036 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 20:20:43 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 20:20:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 22495 invoked by uid 40001); 1 Mar 2000 20:24:11 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 22492 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 20:24:09 -0000 Received: from fj.egroups.com (208.50.144.72) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 20:24:09 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2117-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.37] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 01 Mar 2000 20:24:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 12603 invoked from network); 1 Mar 2000 20:24:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Mar 2000 20:24:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.51) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 1 Mar 2000 20:24:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 38247 invoked by uid 0); 1 Mar 2000 20:24:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20000301202400.38246.qmail@hotmail.com> Received: from 200.41.247.59 by www.hotmail.com with HTTP; Wed, 01 Mar 2000 12:24:00 PST X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.59] To: lojban@onelist.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@onelist.com; contact lojban-owner@onelist.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@onelist.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 12:24:00 PST X-eGroups-From: "Jorge Llambias" From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: [lojban] Sets etc. Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit From: "Jorge Llambias" la djan cusku di'e >I brought up "ralju" psecisely to mention a "non-mathematical" use of >classes/sets. >There is no reason why there should not be a branch of set theory dealing >with the "most important" members of sets, but it happens there is not. But is there any reason why masses cannot have a most important member? Does this lead to confusion? The point of making distinctions is to avoid ambiguity. Otherwise it is like having gender for nouns, we could do it, but what for? At least Adam's example with {simxu} pointed out an actual difference, but is there a difference in using {ralju} with sets or with masses? >Which leads me to the following challenge, due to Quine. A student at Yale >may belong to zero or more clubs. Some clubs are final clubs. A final >club is defined as "a club such that membership in it precludes membership >in >any other final club". > >Express the definition of "final club" in good Lojban without circularity. I'll give it a shot. Let's use {girzu} for "club", and {mulgirzu} for "final club". This should work: ca'e ro da poi girzu cu mulgirzu I define: Every club is a final club. I think that is the only way that what you called a definition can really define final clubs. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Luck o' the Irish! Get your St. Paddy's day party supplies at GreatEntertaining.com today. Green salami, brew kits, shamrock confetti, gold coins, & more. Erin Go Bragh! http://click.egroups.com/1/2042/1/_/17627/_/951942240/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com