From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 18 01:14:48 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 18 May 2006 01:14:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fgddk-00032s-IX for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 01:13:48 -0700 Received: from nz-out-0102.google.com ([64.233.162.196]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.61) (envelope-from ) id 1Fgddd-00032l-Hm for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 18 May 2006 01:13:46 -0700 Received: by nz-out-0102.google.com with SMTP id f1so423181nzc for ; Thu, 18 May 2006 01:13:40 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=sQqYT13yUHXzHmL6W7ycYtDl98dX1K1CGizPOwyzjtgaO8GwR+mbaXuMRJ9uk79+y7S6u9jh95F1RC92ZL8iq9QkeiL8IaScuw13qJ0zyJAfT1tJ+e+mVHBrTsNXLoYyZhiw8pl17q54uVoh7ie7/KlDi49F/JU2g8DRKlFdgEY= Received: by 10.36.58.17 with SMTP id g17mr221260nza; Thu, 18 May 2006 01:13:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.36.153.14 with HTTP; Thu, 18 May 2006 01:13:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 02:13:39 -0600 From: "Maxim Katcharov" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <925d17560605171928h4d0b087dodbae45cd597acb21@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560605160731j379ecfdbo42862a88433e112c@mail.gmail.com> <20060516180605.9560.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <925d17560605161836n48cdbcc8te6ddc2d279fe96ac@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605170638h3206c565pd67d5519e6d00674@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560605171928h4d0b087dodbae45cd597acb21@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11605 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: maxim.katcharov@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 5/17/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 5/17/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > On 5/17/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > On 5/17/06, Maxim Katcharov wrote: > > > > > > > > You also need it for "future bears" to work, and for "past bears" to > > > > work in a way that isn't "such that are in our memories now". > > > > > > No, those are {lo ba cribe} and {lo pu cribe}. In many contexts they > > > would not be candidate referents, so you would need the {ba} or the {pu} > > > to make them available. In some special contexts, they may be included > > > in {lo cribe}. > > > > (I said that you need this hypothetical set for those to work. I > > didn't actually give examples contrary to the two that you gave as > > corrections.) > > Ah, sorry, I misread your "you". You were using generic "you" and I took > you to mean me. I thought you meant that I needed this universal set > for my way of doing it, and that's what I was objecting to. > > > 1. How do you say "five bears will exist in the future"? > > If you mean five and no more than five, then: > > mu cribe ba zasti > > If you mean at least five, then: > > su'o mu cribe ba zasti > What does a number without a L_ expand to? An inner or an outer, or something different? > > {mu L_ ro cribe cu ba zasti} > > Five bears, out of all hypothetical future bears, will exist in the future. > > Yes, that's "out of all bears, exactly five will exist (at some > unspecified time > in the future)". "[out of] all bears" amounts to my "[out of] the set of all hypothetical/possible permutations of bears". Does this clarify how I'm using this 'hypothetical-all-permutiation set'? Or do you disagree with this? If you disagree, then how are you using "[out of] all bears" in that above sentance? You don't mean "(out of) the set of all bears that will exist", because that wouldn't work. > > > 2. How do you restrict to "all bears such that will exist"? > > {l_ ro cribe poi ba zasti} > > All bears such that exist in the future. > > Yes. > > > (Assuming 1 is true, 2 will pick out 5 bears.) > > Right. > > > Is this how you would answer the two questions? If not, how would you > > answer them? > > Without having more context, that's about it. I don't have any more context in mind (if that's what you mean). > > > > This is what I mean: In many/most contexts particles of dust won't > > > be available as possible referents without some extra work from the > > > speaker. So if you say {le tanxe cu vasru no da}, "the box contains > > > nothing", dust particles won't count as a disproof of the assertion. Of > > > course, any participant may bring dust particles into the discourse > > > and then they will have to be dealt with somehow, but until and unless > > > that happens, they don't count. You seem to want them to always count, > > > so that {le tanxe cu vasru no da} is practically always false. > > > > Are you saying that you lose the ability to express yourself? > > No, in what way am I saying that? If {le tanxe cu vasru no da} is practically always false, then the implication is that it's hard to say it in a way that means I'm just talking about sensible things - not dust, and not molecules. I was just asking if you wanted to imply that, and I see that you did not. > > Given your example, {L_ tanxe cu vasru no da}, exactly how /would/ I > > make the assertion that there is *nothing* in the box? > > You mean how would you emphasize the "nothing"? With {ba'e}: > > le tanxe cu vasru ba'e no da > The box contains *nothing*. No, sorry. I mean how would I say that the box contains nothing - no molecules, no dust, etc.? > >Does {mi panpi > > no da} mean that I am at peace with nothing? Or is it just nothing > > that we've mentioned? > > "I am at peace with no one" would be a better translation, since the > candidates for being at peace with will normally be people. One could also not be at peace with a hand that looks like a flipper, a broken lamp - that sort of thing. "There is not a thing that I am at peace with", with the implication that there are some things that you could be at peace with. > Relevant things are not necessarily or even usually things that have > been mentioned before. Things mentioned are almost automatically > relevant, but the converse does not hold. Most relevant things usually > would not have been mentioned. I agree, though that doesn't quite answer my question. > > > > > Why is it wrong to use this hypothetical set that includes every > > > > permutation of what could be a bear in every place at every time > > > > [...]? > > > > > > I wouldn't say it's wrong, I'd say it's humanly impossible. > > > > What's humanly impossible? > > To make use of a set that doesn't exist. The set is hypothetical. I could make use of "unicorn" though no unicorns exist. And I can grasp and make use of the concept of infinity, though it too doesn't exist (though I surely wouldn't grasp the sheer vastness of infinity). I can make use of future-bears that may very well not come to exist. And I can make use of this set to say "out of all in that set, 5 will exist (in the future)". > > > In the email directed at John on May 16, 2006 7:25 PM, starting "It > > /is/ dependant on the /setting/" I offered the sentences spoken by > > aleks's speakers, except in a form that I consider, and hope, is > > complete, or fool-proof. I don't know if John has addressed them, but > > I would like to know what someone who thinks that you can't make > > complete restrictions would find incomplete about them. > > Not sure what this would prove, but for example you had to assume > that {cpana} admits stones on the game board, but not stones already The definition of {cpana} I was using then was "directly supported by from below". > inside the bag. I don't have a problem with that, but it shows that > what counts as cpana depends on the context. In other contexts, > the stones already in the bag will count as being cpana the table, (for My used definition of {cpana} was wrong, I should have said {lamji cpana}. > example in "bring everything cpana the table into the house"), and I wouldn't be talking about just stones then - I'd be talking about "things such that are on the table" - it just so happens that the stones in the bag are a component part of that which is on the table (i.e. the bag of stones). > in yet another context, stones on the board won't count as being > cpana the table (for example, in "when a stone is captured, you remove > it from the board and put it cpana the table"). So your "put all white stones If you want to be precise about that one, you'd say "{lamji cpana} the table", because if you said cpana you would indeed be saying "pick it up from the board, and then put it somewhere where it's supported by the table from below" (though usually the listener wouldn't be a twit about it). Or you could (and probably would) just say "remove the stone from the board". It also depends on how words like "remove" and "put into" are defined - is it "ensure that it is removed..", "ensure that it is in..", or do they mean "perform the action of taking a stone off of the board", "perform the action of putting the stone in from the outside"? > that are on the table into the white bag" is perfectly clear, even excessive, > given the context, but it is not context independent. I think that it is independant (of context). Given my responses, can you think of other objections? > > > > Under normal circumstances none of > > > those less-than-absolute-certainties interfere with understanding. > > > > By normal circumstances, you mean not instructions, contracts, etc.? > > No, I do mean to include those. For example the "all bears killed by people > must be accounted for under the quota" that I cited was from a contract. The contract is probably using my{L_ cribe}, though context would be very unambiguous in that contract. The contract really should say "all bears in the X valley (henceforth referred to as 'da')"... > > > That is, under circumstances that this doesn't really matter anyway, > > it's easily understood? Well yes, but you do need it for those other > > situations. > > I am not even persuaded that what you say is needed is even possible. > And even if it were possible, that it is needed. If it were possible, I guess > it wouldn't hurt to have it, though not by breaking other stuff. > > > Ah, right. Yes, "both" is not the right word to use, I want "either". > > My point is that you end up with a sickly sentence for describing > > something simple. > > {lo ro cribe poi nenri le selri'u} is simple enough. The "whether we talked > about them before or not" is not something that you would need to add in > the context you presented. > > And suppose we were to take your {ro} here. What happens if one of the > bears in the cage has its head sticking out of it? Does it count? The definition of {nenri} is explicit: "[totally within the bounds of x2]" - so no, that bear with his head sticking out doesn't count. I don't think that I like this definition very much, but then again, it's my fault for misusing it. I should have used the x1 of {rinju}. > What happens if there is a bear outside the cage sticking its head into > the cage? Are the two bears to be treated differently under the context-free > reading? Under my interpretation, given the context, the first bear counts No, they're both not totally in the cage. > as "in the cage" and the second one doesn't. But how would you decide > without taking context into account? What I (and I think also you) actually want to say is "take all bears such that are rinju (restrained by) that thing (that cage) to the infirmary". So no, I assert that context doesn't specify the meaning of the word, it's just that I messed up on my example(s) (erm, I blame English). To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.