From sentto-44114-3571-963295328-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Tue Jul 11 06:00:06 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 22338 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2000 06:00:05 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 06:00:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 6277 invoked by uid 40001); 11 Jul 2000 06:02:14 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 6273 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2000 06:02:13 -0000 Received: from mu.egroups.com (207.138.41.151) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 06:02:13 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-3571-963295328-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.35] by mu.egroups.com with NNFMP; 11 Jul 2000 07:02:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 13290 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2000 06:02:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Jul 2000 06:02:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bodhi.math.ucla.edu) (128.97.4.253) by mta1 with SMTP; 11 Jul 2000 06:02:07 -0000 Received: from localhost (bodhi.math.ucla.edu [128.97.4.253]) by bodhi.math.ucla.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id XAA18793; Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:02:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Sender: jimc@xena.cft.ca.us To: Elrond Cc: Lojban List In-Reply-To: Message-ID: From: Jim Carter MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:01:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: zi'o & otpi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit What's being discussed is not so far from reality. It is believed that smallpox is extinct in the wild, and it has been proposed authoritatively to destroy all authorized stocks of the virus, and this may actually be done soon, and it is *assumed* that there are no unauthorized stocks. Thus there will (one hopes) be no existing-in-reality instances of smallpox viruses. On the other hand, the genotype of smallpox is known, i.e. the exact nucleotide sequence of its RNA is known. (I think poxviruses are RNA viruses; if not, it's unimportant to the argument.) In this sense a species of virus is specified in the maximum possible detail, when no instances exist. It is also possible to hypothetically change key packaging genes of the sequence, so the virus could not be assembled, and hence no instances could possibly exist. (This maneuver is sometimes done for research purposes in other viruses, and cells are co-infected with a helper virus that provides packaging services.) I can scarcely imagine that "virus" would not be applicable to a defective smallpox ?virus that has, and can have, no instances. But if you take the strict position that the predicate vidru/virus is defined as a large but (in this case) finite set of pairs of (virus particle, its species or defining property), then if you make up a lujvo for "smallpox virus" its definition set would be empty, because there would be zero virus particles. Thus we sort of have to break this way of defining predicates. Perhaps one way is to contemplate adjoining to the set of actually or potentially existing instances in each argument place, a placeholder or anonymous variable whose very potentiality isn't going to be examined too closely. I think of it in terms of "suspension of disbelief". If you're straight-arrow up the kazoo, you're going to end up unable to use your language. James F. Carter Voice 310 825 2897 FAX 310 206 6673 UCLA-Mathnet; 6115 MSA; 405 Hilgard Ave.; Los Angeles, CA, USA 90095-1555 Internet: jimc@math.ucla.edu (finger for PGP key) UUCP:...!{ucsd,ames,ncar,gatech,purdue,rutgers,decvax,uunet}!math.ucla.edu!jimc On Mon, 10 Jul 2000, Elrond wrote: > > > > > > le se gerku be zi'o, for a dog breed > > > that exists independently of actual dogs. > > > > 1) "gerku" relates not only actual dogs with actual dog breeds, but > > allows the relation of potential dogs and/or potential dog breeds as well. > > Does it even make sense to talk about a dog breed which neither is, > > nor could possibly be, instantiated in any conceivable dogs? What on earth > > would make it a *dog* breed, then? > > Well, let's imagine a fiction story in the future, where a crazy inventor > is wanting to create a completely new, yet unexisting, dog breed, and this > not by instanciating a sample dog from it, but by specifying on paper all > the characteristics of the dog breed, more particularly by specifying the > characteristics of the breed not as the characteristics of any dog of that > breed, but of the breed as a "breed" (= species, somewhat). > ... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! 1. Fill in the brief application 2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds 3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR http://click.egroups.com/1/6628/4/_/17627/_/963295328/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com