From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 11 09:14:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 11 Sep 2001 16:14:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 94071 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2001 16:14:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2001 16:14:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105) by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Sep 2001 16:14:01 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.29.1a8bc704 (3852) for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:02:43 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <29.1a8bc704.28cf8fa2@aol.com> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:02:42 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_29.1a8bc704.28cf8fa2_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 10651 --part1_29.1a8bc704.28cf8fa2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/11/2001 7:52:38 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > Evidently I was mistaken to think we were all engaged in the same > programme of enquiry, then. AFAI am concernced, the aim is to find a > logical representation for Q-kau sentences. If that turns out to be=20 > reasonably > elegant, then we could then drop qkau. If it turns out to be a bit clunky > then we would know what qkau expands to logically. >=20 I think we are engaged in the same enterprise (at least in part -- I have n= o=20 desire to do away with Qkau, only to understand it), but from opposite ends= .=20=20 You appear to think that questions won't be clear until they are formalized= ,=20 I tend to thing they can't be formalized until they are clear. I am also=20 pretty sure that the formalization will be unusably complex, since I can ve= ry=20 little chance of avoiding moving through several levels of logic and probab= ly=20 the metalanguage: a good explanation in a scientific study of the langauge= =20 but not someothing anyone would say. True, but English is a capable of being logical as Lojban and seem a fair=20 test for whether indirect questions can be logically unfolded in a speakabl= e=20 human language (which Lojban is not yet provably). No, a list will not do, since the set may very well not be finite, given al= l=20 the variations possible and acceptable ({xu} questions probably are finite= =20 sets, but theya re a special case in other ways as well). I really have tried hard to read And's commentsa quasi formal versions of m= y=20 markedly less formal ones, but the connection escapes me: I may be reading= =20 too much -- or the wrong things -- into the notion of extensional and I ju= st=20 may have a different picture in mind, but each of the items he produces jus= t=20 comes out wrong any way I try to interpret it (even ignoring known slips of= =20 the pen).=20=20 <#=A0 <#Well, the {makau} {ce'u} is restricted, too -- maybe more so -- sin= ce=20 it=20 #=A0 #has to generate *answers*=A0 and not every possible value will apply= =20 #=A0 #(indeed, generally most will not).=A0 Further, unlike the "bound" {ce= 'u},=A0=20 #=A0 #the restrictions tend to be implicit rather than overt.=A0=20 # #=A0 I think this is incorrect. The extension of ka is the set of all order= ed #=A0 n-tuples that instantiate the n ce'u=A0 in the ka. So the ce'u are not #=A0 restricted.> #=A0 You were the one who said the extension of {ce'u} was restricted: #=A0 ( usage), there are two variables: {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u X prami Y}. # > X is restricted to Dubya and Jeb (do we *have* to use Bushes in our # > exsmples??) and Y ranges freely.>) I say "Y ranges freely". Y is "the makau ce'u". You say "the makau ce'u is restricted too". I say "I think this is incorrect". You reply by quoting me saying "[the makau ce'u] ranges freely". Or have the wires got crossed somewhere?> Apparently. You said X, the overt {ce'u} is restricted. I said that it wa= s=20 not, although only the values for W and Jeb were sifgnificant. I said Y (t= he=20 {makau} that you claim is also a {ce'u}) is not restricted. I said that in= =20 fact it is restricted and implicitly, rather than explicitly. Since you thn= e=20 talked about {ce'u} I foolishly thought you were talking about {ce'u},=20 forgetting that you now thought {makau} was {ce'u}, and so replied to what= =20 you said, not to what you apparently meant. We still disagree, but at leas= t=20 I hope we now agree on what we disagree about.=20=20 The range of the overt {ce'u} is not restricted (I say) even though only tw= o=20 values are significant for the issue at hand. The range of {makau} (you sa= y=20 a crypto{ce'u}, with which I disagree) I say is restricted in an informal a= nd=20 implicit way to those cases which make acceptable answers -- hard to descri= be=20 in advance, though we recognize failures easily enough. It is not that all= =20 the possible replacements are there but do not count (as in the overt {ce'u= }=20 case) but that some replacements are not there at all, since, were they=20 there, they would count, as things are imagined at the moment.=20 I suspect that it is this latter point that is the bone of contention, sinc= e=20 dealing with it my way means that a complete formalization of questions is= =20 impossible, except by putting in a very fuzzy predicate about acceptable=20 answers, and And does not like fuzzy predicates, even when they are necessa= ry. Hey, it's your analysis; give me a plausible case of it working, so that I= =20 can see whether it does or not. Every case so far has come with an attache= d=20 "but this is not yet quite right," with which I heartily agree. <. By my analysis of Q-kau, Y is #=A0 #> underlyingly ce'u -- ordinary unrestricted woldemarian ce'u. So #=A0 #> although I could accept your story that X is a contextually restric= ted #=A0 #> ce'u, this leaves us with free and contextually restricted ce'u in = the #=A0 #> same bridi, and with no way to tell them apart (in logical form).> # #=A0 But woldemarian {ce'u} is a lambda bound variable and {makau} is not=20 #=A0 obviously so=20 So what are you telling me? That my Insight was not an obvious one...? ;-) # -- and your problem with it suggests that is should not be so at all.=A0>= =20 I think your insight is an insight and not an obvious one, but also a wrong= =20 one. There are a lot of similarities between {ce'u} and {ma} (with or=20 without the {kau}), so that getting a good grip on one helps with the other= .=20=20 But I don't think they are the same, at least partly because of the other=20 items that go with {ma}, which are not paralleled with {ce'u}. Of course, = I=20 am also hooked into the set-of-answers explanation (that is what Logic does= ,=20 so I will follow up on it until it clearly doesn't work or I get an answer)= ,=20 which does not fit with the {ce'u} connection either. The fact that workin= g=20 woith both of these as {ce'u} presents you with a logical problem, suggests= =20 to me that the assumption you are working with (that they both are {ce'u}) = is=20 likely wrong. Of course, I see the restricted and unrestricted sorted in t= he=20 opposite way, but that doesn't change the problem. There is a problem with {kau} and {ce'u}, having to do with which gets=20 expanded first (i.e. a scope problem, if you will), since some situations=20 seem to favor one expansion, others the other. I have been solving that ad= =20 hoc so far, but that can't continue, especially if the whole is to be=20 formalized at all.=20 --part1_29.1a8bc704.28cf8fa2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 9/11/2001 7:52:38 AM Central Daylight Time,=20
arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


Evidently I was mistaken = to think we were all engaged in the same
programme of enquiry, then. AFAI am concernced, the aim is to find a
logical representation for Q-kau sentences. If that turns out to be=20
reasonably
elegant, then we could then drop qkau. If it turns out to be a bit clun= ky
then we would know what qkau expands to logically.


I think we are engaged in the same enterprise (at least in part -- I ha= ve no=20
desire to do away with Qkau, only to understand it), but from opposite = ends.  
You appear to think that questions won't be clear until they are formal= ized,=20
I tend to thing they can't be formalized until they are clear.  I = am also=20
pretty sure that the formalization will be unusably complex, since I ca= n very=20
little chance of avoiding moving through several levels of logic and pr= obably=20
the metalanguage: a good explanation in a scientific study of the langa= uge=20
but not someothing anyone would say.

<Do I need to point out that English does not claim to be a logical = language?
English is not Loglan.>

True, but English is a capable of being logical as Lojban and seem a fa= ir=20
test for whether indirect questions can be logically unfolded in a spea= kable=20
human language (which Lojban is not yet provably).

<To avoid you wasting time, I'd better make clear that Jorge defined= the
set of answers extensionally (i.e. by listing them all). I don't consid= er that
satisfactory.>

No, a list will not do, since the set may very well not be finite, give= n all=20
the variations possible and acceptable ({xu} questions probably are fin= ite=20
sets, but theya re a special case in other ways as well).

<As I said, the analyses aren't rivals. I can't think of a formaliza= tion that=20
comes closer to approximating the set of answers analysis than the
extensional analysis does, so in that sense it is a quasi-formal
restatement, and if that's what you think too then your other comments
below are hard to understand.>

I really have tried hard to read And's commentsa quasi formal versions = of my=20
markedly less formal ones, but the connection escapes me: I may be read= ing=20
too much -- or the wrong things -- into the notion of extensional  = ;and I just=20
may have a different picture in mind, but each of the items he produces= just=20
comes out wrong any way I try to interpret it (even ignoring known slip= s of=20
the pen).  

<#=A0 <#Well, the {makau} {ce'u} is restricted, too -- maybe more= so -- since=20
it=20
#=A0 #has to generate *answers*=A0 and not every possible value will ap= ply=20
#=A0 #(indeed, generally most will not).=A0 Further, unlike the "bound"= {ce'u},=A0=20
#=A0 #the restrictions tend to be implicit rather than overt.=A0=20
#
#=A0 I think this is incorrect. The extension of ka is the set of all o= rdered
#=A0 n-tuples that instantiate the n ce'u=A0 in the ka. So the ce'u are= not
#=A0 restricted.>
#=A0 You were the one who said the extension of {ce'u} was restricted:
#=A0 (<in {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u ce'u prami ma kau} (in standard
# > usage), there are two variables: {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u X pram= i Y}.
# > X is restricted to Dubya and Jeb (do we *have* to use Bushes in = our
# > exsmples??) and Y ranges freely.>)

I say "Y ranges freely". Y is "the makau ce'u". You say "the makau ce'u
is restricted too". I say "I think this is incorrect". You reply by quo= ting
me saying "[the makau ce'u] ranges freely".

Or have the wires got crossed somewhere?>
Apparently.  You said X, the overt {ce'u} is restricted.  I s= aid that it was=20
not, although only the values for W and Jeb were sifgnificant.  I = said Y (the=20
{makau} that you claim is also a {ce'u}) is not restricted.  I sai= d that in=20
fact it is restricted and implicitly, rather than explicitly. Since you= thne=20
talked about {ce'u} I foolishly thought you were talking about {ce'u},= =20
forgetting that you now thought {makau} was {ce'u}, and so replied to w= hat=20
you said, not to what you apparently meant.  We still disagree, bu= t at least=20
I hope we now agree on what we disagree about.  
The range of the overt {ce'u} is not restricted (I say) even though onl= y two=20
values are significant for the issue at hand.  The range of {makau= } (you say=20
a crypto{ce'u}, with which I disagree) I say is restricted in an inform= al and=20
implicit way to those cases which make acceptable answers -- hard to de= scribe=20
in advance, though we recognize failures easily enough.  It is not= that all=20
the possible replacements are there but do not count (as in the overt {= ce'u}=20
case) but that some replacements are not there at all, since, were they= =20
there, they would count, as things are imagined at the moment.=20
I suspect that it is this latter point that is the bone of contention, = since=20
dealing with it my way means that a complete formalization of questions= is=20
impossible, except by putting in a very fuzzy predicate about acceptabl= e=20
answers, and And does not like fuzzy predicates, even when they are nec= essary.

<You have not shown how/that the extension-of analysis gives inappro= priate
meanings that are not equivalent to interrogative or q-kau expressions.= =20
Jorge has attempted to do that, though without having convinced me yet.= >
Hey, it's your analysis; give me a plausible case of it working, so tha= t I=20
can see whether it does or not.  Every case so far has come with a= n attached=20
"but this is not yet quite right," with which I heartily agree.

<. By my analysis of Q-kau, Y is
#=A0 #> underlyingly ce'u -- ordinary unrestricted woldemarian ce'u.= So
#=A0 #> although I could accept your story that X is a contextually = restricted
#=A0 #> ce'u, this leaves us with free and contextually restricted c= e'u in the
#=A0 #> same bridi, and with no way to tell them apart (in logical f= orm).>
#
#=A0 But woldemarian {ce'u} is a lambda bound variable and {makau} is n= ot=20
#=A0 obviously so=20

So what are you telling me? That my Insight was not an obvious one...?
;-)

# -- and your problem with it suggests that is should not be so at all.= =A0>=20

I think your insight is an insight and not an obvious one, but also a w= rong=20
one.  There are a lot of similarities between {ce'u} and {ma} (wit= h or=20
without the {kau}), so that getting a good grip on one helps with the o= ther.  
But I don't think they are the same, at least partly because of the oth= er=20
items that go with {ma}, which are not paralleled with {ce'u}.  Of= course, I=20
am also hooked into the set-of-answers explanation (that is what Logic = does,=20
so I will follow up on it until it clearly doesn't work or I get an ans= wer),=20
which does not fit with the {ce'u} connection either.  The fact th= at working=20
woith both of these as {ce'u} presents you with a logical problem, sugg= ests=20
to me that the assumption you are working with (that they both are {ce'= u}) is=20
likely wrong.  Of course, I see the restricted and unrestricted so= rted in the=20
opposite way, but that doesn't change the problem.
There is a problem with {kau} and {ce'u}, having to do with which gets= =20
expanded first (i.e. a scope problem, if you will), since some situatio= ns=20
seem to favor one expansion, others the other.  I have been solvin= g that ad=20
hoc so far, but that can't continue, especially if the whole is to be=20
formalized at all.=20






--part1_29.1a8bc704.28cf8fa2_boundary--