From gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch Sat Jul 06 13:42:18 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: gordon.dyke@bluewin.ch X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 6 Jul 2002 20:42:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 95984 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 20:42:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Jul 2002 20:42:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta11n.bluewin.ch) (195.186.1.211) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 20:42:18 -0000 Received: from oemcomputer (62.202.164.187) by mta11n.bluewin.ch (Bluewin AG 6.0.053) id 3D0EE297002E9571 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 22:42:15 +0200 Message-ID: <003601c2252d$ccade660$bba4ca3e@oemcomputer> To: "jboste" References: <167.104005df.2a5873c2@aol.com> Subject: Re: mei (was Pro-Sumti) Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 22:42:52 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 From: "G. Dyke" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=81437350 X-Yahoo-Profile: gregvdyke X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 14598 > 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. **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 > > >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. **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 > > <> 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?