From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Sep 22 11:24:35 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 22 Sep 2001 18:23:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 25222 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2001 18:23:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.221 with QMQP; 22 Sep 2001 18:23:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta07-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.47) by mta3 with SMTP; 22 Sep 2001 18:24:34 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.41.83]) by mta07-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010922182431.PFXP710.mta07-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 19:24:31 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] the set of answers Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 19:23:47 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <84.1b6f8634.28d4e349@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10955 pc: > In a message dated 9/14/2001 8:09:01 PM Central Daylight Time, > a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: > set of answers analysis, then that's fair enough, and you need either > to accept my formalization and drop the set of answers analysis or else to > seek another formalization. > > If you mean that my formalizations are not semantically (truthconditionally, > let's say) adequate formalizations of qkau/interrogative sentences, then > this should be proved by citing instances of truthconditional > nonequivalence.> > > Hard to do until we look at all the contexts. It does not seem to > work on {ko'a krici le du'u makau klama}, since who ko'a believes to > go may not indeed go. I suppose there is a patch for this, though I > don't know what it is. We will look at other cases as they arise. I've just sent off a reply to another message that denies that the extension analysis fails to work with krici. to claim that "there is some x such that John believes that x is the extension of tu'odu'u ce'u klama" is not to claim that "x is the extension of tu'odu'u ce'u klama". > can't make sense of it. For "Dubya and Chelsea differ in who their mother > is" (or its proper logical or Lojban equivalent), I don't see either why > "who" is restricted or why "their" is unrestricted> > "Who" is restricted because the only usable arguments are human > females of the present and recent past and..., "their" is of course > restricted, but the {ce'u} that emerges from it is not, since they > differ with respect to the whole function -- the difference only > emergees in the particular case, but the function runs through its > entire set of arguments. I still couldn't reproduce and apply your reasoning about this, let's let this one drop for the time being. > caveats applied to "depend" and "differ" qkau constructions. That's why > the message header said it was an ungeneralized analysis. I haven't issued > any assurances that the analysis is correct, but it's the only formalization > proposed so far that hasn't been shown to be inadequate.> > > OK. Well, set of answers works smoothly for those two cases, as > outlined elsewhere in the message being quoted. Of course, you can > argue it is not formalized, but it is up to trivial objections. And > it is done within a general system. I don't claim that it is correct > beyond the implicit one in pursuing it, but I haven't seen > functioning objections to it yet either. > > As for a plausible case of it working, what do you want? The normal strategy > we employ in our discussions is to present reasons why an analysis fails. > Analyses that resist falsification are accepted as correct.> > > The reason why analysis fails is that it does not provide a correct > analysis (one that works out right according to some pretest sense of > what the analysis should do) of a case. So, we have to look at > cases. So far set-of-answers is ahead on points, working for {dunli, > frica, djuno, krici} and the menu problem, while extension works well > for {djuno}, not for {krici}, and questionably for the rest. I yet again reject the idea that Set-of-Answers and Extension can be treated as competitors. I think I can translate any Set-of-Answers analysis into an Extension one, so whatever Set-of-Answers works for, so does Extension. > can't be restructured so that they contain a ma? And even if your answer > were Yes, would there not equally be a case for a ce'u counterpart of > non-ma q-words?> > > Of course we can reformulate to just use {ma}, though provbing that > we had exactly the same thing as before might be difficult without > already having a general solution to the Q-kau issue. And we can, of > course, introduce lambda operators of higher levels. The point is > just that I don't see the need to if the solution doesn't require it > -- and I don't see it doing so. The solution does require it if that by definition is a criterion of what counts as a solution -- for me to understand qkau I need to feduce it to a logical formula that contains logical elements only of standard sorts. > > woith both of these as {ce'u} presents you with a logical problem, suggests > > to me that the assumption you are working with (that they both are > {ce'u}) is > > likely wrong. > > If you're talking about the two variables in the "differ in who they love" > construction, then I do not assume that the "they" element is a ce'u.> > > Ah. What is it then that it gives you a two-ce'u problem? "differ in who they love". Standard lojban renders "they" as ce'u. I think "who" should be rendered as ce'u. Hence apparent two-ce'u problem. Solution: "they" is not ce'u. The solution was spelt out in an earlier message, which I repeat here, for your convenience: #I think I am now able to offer a halfway decent analysis: # #no da ro de poi ke'a cmima la dybiyb ce la tcelsik [-- or cmima of whatever #class of differers --] zo'u #da -extension-of tu'odu'u ce'u mamta de # #= D frica C tu'odu'u ma kau mamta ce'u #= Dubya and Chelsea differ in who their mothers are # #Now that can be done more simply as: # #no da ro de poi ke'a cmima la dybiyb ce la tcelsik zo'u da mamta de # #or indeed # #no da mamta ge la dybiyb gi la tcelsik # #But the longerwinded method comes into its own in cases like: # # X and Y differ in who gave them what #= ... frica tu'odu'u ma kau dunda ma kau ce'u #= ... da -extension of tu'odu'u ce'u dunda ce'u de # #Admittedly, this "halfway decent analysis" does not use {frica}, but there #was no guarantee that {frica} is logically sound, and hence no guarantee #that frica could be used in a logically explicit formulation. --And.