Why do we need to, C-set theory aside? Most of the = examples given seem to be cases where some items in a bunch also go by anot= her name in a different context, but are still functioning as in this group= in this case. So we can say {a b} is in {a b c} but just now is not = functioning as a separate item but as a part of the whole. I have not= hing against C-sets and (finally) know how to use them for the various purp= oses for which we want sets of some sort (or not, as xorxes would insist) i= n ordinary language, but these all turn out to be easier and more natural w= ith L-sets (or plural reference).

From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
<= b>Sent: Mon, January 10, 2011= 11:41:34 AM
Subject: R= e: [lojban] Re: Cake, Pie or Ice Cream?

If you aren't going to do it in the main body of the language, then mekso w= on't die completely, because we really do need a way to distinguish {a,b,c}= and {{a,b},c}; in English it's "the set containing a, b, and c" and "the s= et containing the set containing a and b <ambiguous pause> and c", wh= ich is absolutely terrible.

mu'o mi'e .latros.

On Sun, Jan 9, 201= 1 at 5:41 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, that depends on what you are out to do. In particular, if the d= ifference
is forced by the nature of the notation but not by the facts on the ground,=
then, indeed, there is not a need to make the distinction. If you hav= e
something else in mind, then there are always C-sets and all that they enta= il
(most of it with little direct relevance to real life). On the other = hand,
mathematics (though supposedly possible) is hard to do with L-sets.

----- Original Message ----
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.c= om>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com=

Sent: Sun, January 9, 2011 3:01:51 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Cake, Pie or Ice Cream?

Jorge Llamb=EDas, On 09/01/2011 20:= 19:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM, John E Clifford<kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Happily, if the sets are L-sets (just the things mentioned), then = the issue
of
>> how 'ce' groups is irrelevant, as it is clearly meant to be (I pas= s over teh
>> objection to talking about L-sets, since that is irrelevant, too).=
>
> You seem to be saying that we never talk about sets in the language > (only in the metalanguage). That's fine with me, we don't really need<= br> > sets. But if so, is there any difference between "ko'a ce ko'e" and > "ko'a jo'u ko'e"?

Surely there is a need to distinguish {a, b, c} from {{a, b}, c} in ordinar= y
language and thought, where "{}" is some kind of group with members.

--And.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
l= ojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegro= ups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.googl= e.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.