From sentto-44114-14616-1025972678-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat Jul 06 09:25:10 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 06 Jul 2002 09:25:10 z (PDT) Received: from n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.65]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17QsMv-0001Hp-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 09:25:09 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-14616-1025972678-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.95] by n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Jul 2002 16:24:38 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 6 Jul 2002 16:24:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 69432 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 16:24:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m7.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Jul 2002 16:24:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 16:24:38 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id r.167.104005df (4323) for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 12:24:35 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <167.104005df.2a5873c2@aol.com> To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 12:24:34 EDT Subject: Re: Fw: [lojban] pro-sumti question Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_167.104005df.2a5873c2_boundary" X-archive-position: 146 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pycyn@aol.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --part1_167.104005df.2a5873c2_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/6/2002 9:53:08 AM Central Daylight Time, gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch writes: > <> I interpret Nmei as being a bijection between the N members of the set > in > > x2 and the N constituants of the mass in x3.> I take it as an injection 3 >2, as it were: I think that elements in 3 have also to be in 2. >if > > >even one ball is green (sometimes if even one ball has a green spot). > > > > But this is only true because of the implicit pisu'o. It seems to me that it > should only be true if "enough" of the balls are green so that, when > considered as a mass the mass is green. Very little of a pine tree is > actually green (with shadows and all, even less than half) but {le ckunu > tricu cu crino} is true because the tree is considered as the mass of it's > components. <>if > > >even one ball is green (sometimes if even one ball has a green spot). > > > > But this is only true because of the implicit pisu'o. It seems to me that it > should only be true if "enough" of the balls are green so that, when > considered as a mass the mass is green. Very little of a pine tree is > actually green (with shadows and all, even less than half) but {le ckunu > tricu cu crino} is true because the tree is considered as the mass of it's > components.> I don't think that a tree is considered a mass at all (usually, anyhow). It is green just because that is the way we use that word -- analysis might suggest something about what they way is but would not change the humanly primitive use here. <> Agreed, we can live with an implied pisu'o on {lei bolci}, but you can't > extend that to {mei}> Well, it is one way to get consistency into the mass system, the next step will be to make the system intensional, which is generally something to be avoided as long as possible. <> Bzzt. I don't recall any examples given by anyone which explain to me what > it is that we have already established. In other words, I can not extract > any semantical meaning to what you have just said.> Too late for an English lesson here, though what examples you want is unclear, so you are apparently reporting accurately. What I think you may be trying to say is that you can't find a case where xorxes agreed to something that I said that clearly made the size of the set different from the size of the mass. You are right in that; I misunderstood xorxes' definition of {mei}. <>> I think tatpi is a particularly bad example.> It is a good example of a particular kind of problem,one where it is difficult to say what "sum" means in very explicit terms. <> I'd say the truth condition of {lei broda cu tatpi} "should" have more to do > with what {broda} we are dealing with than with the truth conditions of {N > le broda cu tatpi}. In Lojban, {lei nanmu cu tatpi} is true if just one of > the men has tired legs. Who cares if they just want to play on the PSII. It > should be true when the mass of men is tired. With tiredness, this will > happen when some of them are tired and then psychological factors come into > play so that at some point we say {lei nanmu cu tatpi}. Which is a mass > factor with little correlation to what {xokau le nanmu cu tatpi} returns. > With {lei skami cu tatpi} (supposing that Windows outputed {mi tatpi} > instead of crashing). I wouldn't say that until either all of them were > tired, or enough of them for it to hinder their work "as a group".> Right, which is why {tatpi} is a good example -- though I am not sure that tired legs is enough for a man to be tired. {xo le nanmu cu tatpi} -- {kau} is only for subordinate clauses. <> Another way of looking at this has occured to me: take some painters. {lei > nanmu cu tatpi} would probably hinder their functionality as a mass. Maybe a > ladder needs to be held and the guy meant to be holding it got tired. The > way {lei} works, {lei nanmu cu tatpi .ijo su'o le nanmu cu tatpi}. A mass > should be more than the sum of it's elements. I'm sure there must be some > relation for which {lei broda cu brode .ijenai su'o le broda cu brode} is > true.> Certainly not {ijo}; for one man (say) might be tired but the whole group not. It might even be the case that the group was tired though no one member was, I think (if not {tatpi} then surely something else will work here). --part1_167.104005df.2a5873c2_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/6/2002 9:53:08 AM Central Daylight Time, gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch writes:


<> I interpret  Nmei as being a bijection between the N members of the set in
> x2 and the N constituants of the mass in x3.>


I take it as an injection 3 >2, as it were: I think that elements in 3 have also to be in 2.

>if
> > >even one ball is green (sometimes if even one ball has a green spot).
> >
>
> But this is only true because of the implicit pisu'o. It seems to me that
it
> should only be true if "enough" of the balls are green so that, when
> considered as a mass the mass is green. Very little of a pine tree is
> actually green (with shadows and all, even less than half) but {le ckunu
> tricu cu crino} is true because the tree is considered as the mass of it's
> components.

<>if
> > >even one ball is green (sometimes if even one ball has a green spot).
> >
>
> But this is only true because of the implicit pisu'o. It seems to me that
it
> should only be true if "enough" of the balls are green so that, when
> considered as a mass the mass is green. Very little of a pine tree is
> actually green (with shadows and all, even less than half) but {le ckunu
> tricu cu crino} is true because the tree is considered as the mass of it's
> components.>

I don't think that a tree is considered a mass at all (usually, anyhow).  It is green just because that is the way we use that word -- analysis might suggest something about what they way is but would not change the humanly primitive use here.

<> Agreed, we can live with an implied pisu'o on {lei bolci}, but you can't
> extend that to {mei}>

Well, it is one way to get consistency into the mass system, the next step will be to make the system intensional, which is generally something to be avoided as long as possible.

<> Bzzt. I don't recall any examples given by anyone which explain to me what
> it is that we have already established. In other words, I can not extract
> any semantical meaning to what you have just said.>

Too late for an English lesson here, though what examples you want is unclear, so you are apparently reporting accurately.  What I think you may be trying to say is that you can't find a case where xorxes agreed to something that I said that clearly made the size of the set different from the size of the mass.  You are right in that; I misunderstood xorxes' definition of {mei}.

<>> I think tatpi is a particularly bad example.>

It is a good example of a particular kind of problem,one where it is difficult to say what "sum" means in very explicit terms.

<> I'd say the truth condition of {lei broda cu tatpi} "should" have more to
do
> with what {broda} we are dealing with than with the truth conditions of {N
> le broda cu tatpi}. In Lojban, {lei nanmu cu tatpi} is true if just one of
> the men has tired legs. Who cares if they just want to play on the PSII.
It
> should be true when the mass of men is tired. With tiredness, this will
> happen when some of them are tired and then psychological factors come
into
> play so that at some point we say {lei nanmu cu tatpi}. Which is a mass
> factor with little correlation to what {xokau le nanmu cu tatpi} returns.
> With {lei skami cu tatpi} (supposing that Windows outputed {mi tatpi}
> instead of crashing). I wouldn't say that until either all of them were
> tired, or enough of them for it to hinder their work "as a group".>
Right, which is why {tatpi} is a good example -- though I am not sure that tired legs is enough for a man to be tired.
{xo le nanmu cu tatpi} -- {kau} is only for subordinate clauses.

<> Another way of looking at this has occured to me: take some painters. {lei
> nanmu cu tatpi} would probably hinder their functionality as a mass. Maybe
a
> ladder needs to be held and the guy meant to be holding it got tired. The
> way {lei} works, {lei nanmu cu tatpi .ijo su'o le nanmu cu tatpi}. A mass
> should be more than the sum of it's elements. I'm sure there must be some
> relation for which {lei broda cu brode .ijenai su'o le broda cu brode} is
> true.>

Certainly not {ijo}; for one man (say) might be tired but the whole group not.  It might even be the case that the group was tired though no one member was, I think (if not {tatpi} then surely something else will work here).
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_167.104005df.2a5873c2_boundary--