Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 29227 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2000 13:19:21 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 3 Mar 2000 13:19:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 10837 invoked by uid 40001); 3 Mar 2000 13:19:18 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 10834 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2000 13:19:17 -0000 Received: from fj.egroups.com (208.50.144.72) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 3 Mar 2000 13:19:17 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-2150-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.35] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 03 Mar 2000 13:19:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 23060 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2000 13:19:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 3 Mar 2000 13:19:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailhost.pemail2.net) (195.92.25.8) by mta1.onelist.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2000 13:19:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 621 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2000 13:19:10 -0000 Received: from m534-mp1-cvx1c.gui.ntl.com (HELO andrew) (62.252.14.22) by mailhost.pemail2.net with SMTP; 3 Mar 2000 13:19:10 -0000 To: "lojban" Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 In-Reply-To: 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: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 13:20:01 -0000 X-eGroups-From: "And Rosta" From: "And Rosta" Subject: [lojban] RE: Sets etc. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 3830 Lines: 76 From: "And Rosta" Bastard Onelist unsubbed me for a fortnight, but wading through the archives I found this very interesting messsage from pc. > Finally, a class may be viewed collectively, and then the properties > attributed to it have little to do with the properties of the individual > but rather with matters like how many there are of them or (more related to > their proerties) what toher classes they belong to -- cardinality, > inclusion, and the like -- set theoretic properties, in short, which only > rarely have value in ordinary discourse. It strikes me that the victory/defeat of a sports team is a collective rather than additive or distributive property, yet is not what I would think of as a set-theoretic property. I am wondering whether it is possible to find additive:collective contrasts for a given predicate. That is, are additive:collective two aspects of the same thing, which contrasts with distributive? Or are they different? If same, then cardinality -- being a collective property -- would be a property of masses (because collective is equivalent to additive, and additive properties are masses'), and sets proper would be redundant. If not, then sets proper (lo'i etc.) are useful, because they'd be used for collective rather than additive properties. I expect to be disagreed with, but I look forward to reading the reasons why I'm wrong. I also forget whether there's a significant difference between pi ro loi and pi su'o loi. And if so, is pc failing to take it into account? Jorge? > As for JCB's lo -- it was a muddle and everyone -- even JCB -- knew it was > a muddle of half a dozen different ideas floating around in his > head. I think we now have most of them sorted out in Lojban, though we still > seem to get into fights over a few from time to time (and pretty > generally, having forgetten how we solved it the last time, come up with the > opposite solution the next). I inferred from Jorge's recent description that Loglan lo is used for Mr Rabbit; what I in bygone times called a 'myopic singularizer'. I think that's a Good Thing, although, as with masses, the logical properties are a bit hard to work out. The conceptual basis for the myopic singularizer is that a category is viewed as an individual, and members of the category are merely aspects of the individual. Just as we think of the suns that appear in the sky on different days as all the same individual -- the same sun returning each day -- so we can think of lots of rabbits as Mr Rabbit popping up all over the place. When you start to analyse this logically, it looks very similar to masses, but at least one difference is that the pi ro/pi su'o distinction makes no sense for myopic singulars, just as pi ro/su'o la djan kau,n makes no sense (if la djan kau,n denotes John Cowan rather than merely his corporeal substance). A further difference from masses is that whereas heterogeneous individuals can be massified, they can't be myopically singularized. I also agree with Jorge that Lojban lo'e is probably the thing for this (and also le'e for its **nonveridical** counterpart). [Emphasis because le/lo and lei/loi is primarily a specificity difference, whereas lo'e and le'e is only a veridicality difference.] Canonical Lojban has not solved the Mr Rabbit issue, though; only Llambian/ Llambiasian Lojban has. -- As in so many other respects too, of course. --And. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ DON'T HATE YOUR RATE! Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! http://click.egroups.com/1/2120/1/_/17627/_/952089554/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com