From sentto-44114-14621-1025992054-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Sat Jul 06 14:48:06 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 06 Jul 2002 14:48:06 z (PDT) Received: from n32.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([66.218.66.100]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.05) id 17QxPR-0001fx-01 for lojban-in@lojban.org; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 14:48:05 -0700 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-14621-1025992054-lojban-in=lojban.org@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [66.218.66.98] by n32.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 06 Jul 2002 21:47:34 -0000 X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 6 Jul 2002 21:47:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 39123 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 21:47:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Jul 2002 21:47:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m10.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.165) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 21:47:33 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id r.91.1f80eede (4586) for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 17:47:27 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <91.1f80eede.2a58bf6e@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 17:47:26 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: mei (was Pro-Sumti) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_91.1f80eede.2a58bf6e_boundary" X-archive-position: 151 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_91.1f80eede.2a58bf6e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/6/2002 3:43:05 PM 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. > > **Sorry, this is really confusing, I meant x1 and x2, but I now prefer > xorxes' > > **nmei: x1 is a mass of n elements taken from set x2>> And I like (as I read xorxes) x1 is a mass taken from the n elements of set x2. (perhaps "like" is too strong, "am forced to" surely is too far the other way). <<**Just as a tree should not be considered a mass of things, lei broda should be considered as a mass without consideration for the individual broda>> I don't quite get the parallelism here, "just as" seems wrong since the cases are so opposite, unless the point is just trees and masses are alike unanalyzable things in Lojban. I don't think that is quite true (though masses are also things): masses recognize that there are things that make them up, things don't (generally) recognize that they are also masses of parts. << > <> 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. **I need another English lesson here... (or is it a Logic lesson?) what is wrong with getting consistency in that way?>> OK; there are maybe some pronoun problems here. There are (for me, in my present mood) no problems with getting consistency by extending the peculiarities of {lei} or {loi} to {mei}. It is what I am more or less setting forth as what the Book amounts to saying. As for getting consistency (if it does) by going to intensional definitions of masses, the classic problem is that identical things -- masses with exactly the same members doing the same things (to take the most extreme case) turn out to have different properties -- and, perhaps, get the ones they have in common in different ways. This is bad enough when the intensionality is buried away in special contexts, but making masses intensional would turn it lose in ordinary contexts as well. Since we barely know what to do with intensionality in a few special contexts, it would create considerable havoc out of them. For example, does anaphora of any sort work here -- can I refer back to {lei sovda} with {ri} and still get the same things being true? I don't know and I don't know anyone who knows or even has a good idea what the arguments are on the various sides. And that seems to me to be an easy problem in this matter. --part1_91.1f80eede.2a58bf6e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/6/2002 3:43:05 PM 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.

**Sorry, this is really confusing, I meant x1 and x2, but I now prefer
xorxes'

**nmei: x1 is a mass of n elements taken from set x2>>


And I like (as I read xorxes) x1 is a mass taken from the n elements of set x2.
(perhaps "like" is too strong, "am forced to" surely is too far the other way).

<<**Just as a tree should not be considered a mass of things, lei broda should
be considered as a mass without consideration for the individual broda>>

I don't quite get the parallelism here, "just as" seems wrong since the cases are so opposite, unless the point is just trees and masses are alike unanalyzable things in Lojban.  I don't think that is quite true (though masses are also things): masses recognize that there are things that make them up, things don't (generally) recognize that they are also masses of parts.

<< > <> 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.

**I need another English lesson here... (or is it a Logic lesson?) what is
wrong with getting consistency in that way?>>

OK; there are maybe some pronoun problems here.  There are (for me, in my present mood) no problems with getting consistency by extending the peculiarities of {lei} or {loi} to {mei}.  It is what I am more or less setting forth as what the Book amounts to saying.  As for getting consistency (if it does) by going to intensional definitions of masses, the classic problem is that identical things -- masses with exactly the same members doing the same things (to take the most extreme case) turn out to have different properties -- and, perhaps, get the ones they have in common in different ways.  This is bad enough when the intensionality is buried away in special contexts, but making masses intensional would turn it lose in ordinary contexts as well.  Since we barely know what to do with intensionality in a few special contexts, it would create considerable havoc out of them.  For example, does anaphora of any sort work here -- can I refer back to {lei sovda} with {ri} and still get the same things being true?
I don't know and I don't know anyone who knows or even has a good idea what the arguments are on the various sides.  And that seems to me to be an easy problem in this matter.
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--part1_91.1f80eede.2a58bf6e_boundary--