From lojban+bncCIycn8S8DhD63NruBBoE1A3S-g@googlegroups.com Fri May 20 11:10:16 2011 Received: from mail-qw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.216.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QNU9N-00022m-DX; Fri, 20 May 2011 11:10:16 -0700 Received: by qwh5 with SMTP id 5sf6897281qwh.16 for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 11:10:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=tWhFifyqvdksV+7n3GmheY1im803zXo+v3txq3hgNsw=; b=FMAGb5EOmE4p7IO4xt5IlPVHtWGA7XlqdgtGkTQNK235Lgwg6s0eCt6GtkN+frZOuJ Qag9S/vGybOoGD9mX13V2BkoNFJRLS598t+PWmEFYBlf5ZYUaA4cLd/KEbKEIpDlLLN7 xbgAYnMpxzLQ2nfxxSJ9PsgQ6Hqo+B+PVh1lg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=fiNalgADu0Sr18S6DeCHXjRJLse8GtqdrafKTEgZWc3ExBaLP71TXD7OgaQujFWXlo A+6AePz5I7ii7XN7RdTehhmTRug1RB9Esobouep/FPk4lUxIgOxG0Fr3BQAArLa/SJwe RX83MV1r/Rwx7ZCIEOAYfas5BwOmQda4OYYX8= Received: by 10.229.113.40 with SMTP id y40mr686045qcp.40.1305915002706; Fri, 20 May 2011 11:10:02 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.173.157 with SMTP id p29ls818473qcz.1.gmail; Fri, 20 May 2011 11:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.90.88 with SMTP id h24mr529145qcm.27.1305915001962; Fri, 20 May 2011 11:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.90.88 with SMTP id h24mr529144qcm.27.1305915001922; Fri, 20 May 2011 11:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f53.google.com (mail-qw0-f53.google.com [209.85.216.53]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fz1si2053317qcb.2.2011.05.20.11.10.01 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 20 May 2011 11:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.53; Received: by mail-qw0-f53.google.com with SMTP id 7so2375006qwb.26 for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 11:10:01 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.119.151 with SMTP id z23mr3662986qcq.2.1305915001727; Fri, 20 May 2011 11:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.229.62.78 with HTTP; Fri, 20 May 2011 11:10:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <217730.28216.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:10:01 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no" From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: mturniansky@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of mturniansky@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.53 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mturniansky@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd5c93ac8e99304a3b90796 --000e0cd5c93ac8e99304a3b90796 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Actually, in fuzzy logic, a member can indeed be only "half in" a set. Therefore cardinalities of other-than-non-negative integers has a place in set theory. No reason why lojbaniss shouldn't be able to talk about it. --gejyspa On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Ian Johnson wrote: > On the discussion about pi PA mei: ignore x3s and consider the predicate: > se te pi mu mei > This is "x1 is a set whose 1/2 members are x2". This makes no sense; you > can't have a set with cardinality 1/2. I think part of the problem here is > that we've never resolved the issue of masses (here these are not > technically masses, but we are considering one object and removing some of > its components, leaving behind something that resembles the original object > in some clear sense) with respect to set theory. (At least as far as I know, > maybe this was handled at some point.) The ad hoc solution would be to > remove the relation to sets from mei altogether; set {lo se mei} to be zi'o > in all cases and leave it at that. The better solution would be to figure > out, in a formal sense, what exactly about "a can of oranges" causes it to > make sense to say "half of a can of oranges", and more importantly what > makes "a half a person" make only figurative (or, I suppose, cannibalistic, > if you're into that sort of thing) sense. > > This really has rather little to do with {lo no}, though. > > mu'o mi'e .latros. > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --000e0cd5c93ac8e99304a3b90796 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=A0 Actually, in fuzzy logic, a member can indeed be = only "half in" a set.=A0 Therefore cardinalities of other-than-no= n-negative integers has a place in set theory. No reason why lojbaniss shou= ldn't be able to talk about it.
=A0
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 --gejyspa


=A0
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@g= mail.com> wrote:
On the discussion about pi PA me= i: ignore x3s and consider the predicate:
se te pi mu mei
This is &qu= ot;x1 is a set whose 1/2 members are x2". This makes no sense; you can= 't have a set with cardinality 1/2. I think part of the problem here is= that we've never resolved the issue of masses (here these are not tech= nically masses, but we are considering one object and removing some of its = components, leaving behind something that resembles the original object in = some clear sense) with respect to set theory. (At least as far as I know, m= aybe this was handled at some point.) The ad hoc solution would be to remov= e the relation to sets from mei altogether; set {lo se mei} to be zi'o = in all cases and leave it at that. The better solution would be to figure o= ut, in a formal sense, what exactly about "a can of oranges" caus= es it to make sense to say "half of a can of oranges", and more i= mportantly what makes "a half a person" make only figurative (or,= I suppose, cannibalistic, if you're into that sort of thing) sense.
This really has rather little to do with {lo no}, though.

mu'= ;o mi'e .latros.=20

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the G= oogle Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email= to lojban@goo= glegroups.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/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/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--000e0cd5c93ac8e99304a3b90796--