From pycyn@aol.com Wed Aug 22 15:39:12 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_1); 22 Aug 2001 22:39:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 47497 invoked from network); 22 Aug 2001 22:39:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 22 Aug 2001 22:39:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d05.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.37) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Aug 2001 22:39:03 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.8b.b54f8ac (3868) for ; Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:38:39 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <8b.b54f8ac.28b58e6e@aol.com> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 18:38:38 EDT Subject: Re: status of ka (was Re: [lojban] x3 of du' To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_8b.b54f8ac.28b58e6e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10531 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 9939 --part1_8b.b54f8ac.28b58e6e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think I've lost the thread of all this shouting here, which seems to ahve gotten a ong way from fundamentals. If we go by the Book (or its clear meaning anyhow) {le ka broda} is the referent of {broda}, a function from n-tuples (for what ever n {broda} happens to have) to truth values. In that sense, all of its places are {ce'u}, corresponding to its canonical form Lx1...Lxn Bx1...xn (read the L as "lambda"). Calling it a property is possibly misleading, if you think of a property as a 1-place function. So, call it a relation then or a relationship. Or call it a property of n-tuples If you fill m places with sumti, you get a new function of n-m places (related to the old one in a systematic way). If you fill all the places, you get a proposition (a direct reference to a truth value, also related to the function in a systematic way). It seems that we seldom want to talk about the function flat out, but about certain aspects of it, the roles represented by one place or another or some combination of places. So the issue seems to be, how to do this most efficiently, allowing that the uninteresting places are filled with {zo'e} not {ce'u} and that we want to write as few of these cases as possible. Proposal 2C does that on the assumption that the places more likely to be interesting are the lefter places (the theory behind place structure after all). I am seeing a counting idea, that explicit {ce'u} be used for {ce'u} and that the empty places be {zo'e} (I think, but it is hard to say, exactly, since all the cases so far have had only a single {ce'u}). What exactly, please, is the problem and what is the argument about beyond this? --part1_8b.b54f8ac.28b58e6e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think I've lost the thread of all this shouting here, which seems to ahve
gotten a ong way from fundamentals.  
If we go by the Book (or its clear meaning anyhow) {le ka broda} is the
referent of {broda}, a function from n-tuples (for what ever n {broda}
happens to have) to truth values.  In that sense, all of its places are
{ce'u}, corresponding to its canonical form
Lx1...Lxn Bx1...xn (read the L as "lambda").  Calling it a property is
possibly misleading, if you think of a property as a 1-place function.  So,
call it a relation then or a relationship.  Or call it a property of n-tuples
If you fill m places with sumti, you get a new function of n-m places
(related to the old one in a systematic way).  If you fill all the places,
you get a proposition (a direct reference to a truth value, also related to
the function in a systematic way).  
It seems that we seldom want to talk about the function flat out, but about
certain aspects of it, the roles represented by one place or another or some
combination of places.  So the issue seems to be, how to do this most
efficiently, allowing that the uninteresting places are filled with {zo'e}
not {ce'u} and that we want to write as few of these cases as possible.
Proposal 2C does that on the assumption that the places more likely to be
interesting are the lefter places (the theory behind place structure after
all).  I am seeing a counting idea, that explicit {ce'u} be used for {ce'u}
and that the empty places be {zo'e} (I think, but it is hard to say, exactly,
since all the cases so far have had only a single {ce'u}).
What exactly, please, is the problem and what is the argument about beyond
this? --part1_8b.b54f8ac.28b58e6e_boundary--