From pycyn@aol.com Sun Mar 03 12:32:44 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 3 Mar 2002 20:32:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 13244 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2002 20:32:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2002 20:32:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2002 20:32:43 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.118.d79ddfe (3959) for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 15:32:18 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <118.d79ddfe.29b3e251@aol.com> Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 15:32:17 EST Subject: Re: sets, masses, &c. (was: RE: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautol... To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_118.d79ddfe.29b3e251_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13497 --part1_118.d79ddfe.29b3e251_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/3/2002 1:34:19 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: > Sequences can have properties derived from the members but not > shared with the members. E.g. "The alphabet takes 1 minute to > recite". > But this is true of both sets and masses, so not a useful way to fold sequences into one or the other of them. We might indeed; this is one of the original muddles about masses, as you have spoken about so elequently over the years. And I suspect we do need to work on that some yet. Well, I'm not sure we can do all set things with masses (I think, for example, that the device for building up sets out of the basics will not work for masses -- they will keep collapsing down to the basics again, especially if like xorxes, you believe that the mass of a single dog is a dog). But we do need them less and the two types of masses would be useful -- unless we find some other way to distinguish them (there have been numerous suggestions, many of them from you). --part1_118.d79ddfe.29b3e251_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/3/2002 1:34:19 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:


Sequences can have properties derived from the members but not
shared with the members. E.g. "The alphabet takes 1 minute to
recite".


But this is true of both sets and masses, so not a useful way to fold sequences into one or the other of them.

<We might want to distinguish between masses that don't necessarily
have discrete members (e.g. apple, in diced pureed form), and masses
that do (e.g. apples, filling a bowl). >

We might indeed; this is one of the original muddles about masses, as you have spoken about so elequently over the years.  And I suspect we do need to work on that some yet.

<My point is that, as Jorge often reminds us, we hardly ever need
to talk about sets in the strict sense, so the lV'i gadri are
wasted. But we do often want to talk about groups/teams (appies
filling a bowl), and, I think, anything that can be described
in terms of sets can also be described in terms of sets/teams
-- all properties that sets have are also properties that groups/
teams have. Hence if we did want to distinguish between a bowl
full of apple and a bowl full of apples, I would suggest making
the first be full of lei apple and the second full of le'i apple.>

Well, I'm not sure we can do all set things with masses (I think, for example, that the device for building up sets out of the basics will not work for masses -- they will keep collapsing down to the basics again, especially if like xorxes, you believe that the mass of a single dog is a dog).  But we do need them less and the two types of masses would be useful -- unless we find some other way to distinguish them (there have been numerous suggestions, many of them from you).



 --part1_118.d79ddfe.29b3e251_boundary--