From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Sun Mar 03 11:32:53 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 3 Mar 2002 19:32:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 70247 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2002 19:32:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2002 19:32:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta01-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.41) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2002 19:32:51 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.84.175]) by mta01-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020303193250.OFYY9422.mta01-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:32:50 +0000 To: Subject: RE: sets, masses, &c. (was: RE: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautol... Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 19:32:09 -0000 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: <14c.9cd9293.29b2e71d@aol.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=77248971 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 13493 pc: > a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes: > A sequence can be either a set or a mass; you just add ordering > to the set or to the mass. > > But sequences seem to have properties (beyond order) that neither of > these have -- they don't seem to collaborate and yet the individuals > seem to still function significantly. Sequences can have properties derived from the members but not shared with the members. E.g. "The alphabet takes 1 minute to recite". > "masses", when we talk about logcarrying. I find it more intuitive. > > BTW2, do {lo'i} and {le'i} serve any function that cannot be > served by {loi} and {lei}? For example, do {loi} and {lei} have > a definite cardinality? If, as the term 'mass' implies, {loi} and > {lei} don't a definite cardinality, then I would favour using > {le'i} and {lo'i} loglanically to denote groups, that can carry > logs and have discrete denumerable members.> > > Well, I always liked the term "team" for masses. But masses pretty > clearly have cardinalities -- they are derived from sets or somethig > therelike, which do (I forget if or what the interior quantifer > assumed for these things is). 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). > But masses or groups or whatever are > still very different things from sets -- and things we talk about > much more often. (I suppose that a mass of waters would be hard to > cardinalize unless you took ups some notion of the size of a water, > whichj, at least inm principle, you can do in Lojban.) 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. --And.