From lojban+bncCIywt_XDCRC0ltvuBBoEC6-kdA@googlegroups.com Fri May 20 13:12:51 2011 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QNW3z-0006yf-Dh; Fri, 20 May 2011 13:12:51 -0700 Received: by gxk3 with SMTP id 3sf4382812gxk.16 for ; Fri, 20 May 2011 13:12:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf :x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id:message-id:x-ymail-osg :x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version :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=tNfIFBMmnHQ9/eI6gAmWOD0DKwPtppVmUsCdp4fUMbE=; b=EGhyAInhBbRFsrWLwh2STrVQR1y3UNYngAToM9Z1AmwPcmmKyk7mrm7uYkPgl4TmN5 0lkFh0cq15VPoua68NLscuyt/zVNHmL830B4t233Amq6FiIkRzRQ/0THS0o8aRXkvrY6 N5scPF3o0mr8nGUzFwvprq3LAi5SoIv3Ii9Ko= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :message-id:x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:date:from:subject:to :in-reply-to:mime-version: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=CnTM82p8V65h0SA4N5Q8TCNfeXV+JZ3wqSTKAQkiw6cx3KOlVD+K/vslP5otV7/Y86 e+uCEbOsOrnFAODAusI415KNPbUKahLJ129MvdpOoKRMHYRu6rufslaIAxIETKZLXu+R LydtVu7zsTzWRwQf9VBfaTyRjn8jRQE7tN3dE= Received: by 10.236.190.200 with SMTP id e48mr4710yhn.47.1305922356780; Fri, 20 May 2011 13:12:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.91.72.17 with SMTP id z17ls475345agk.3.gmail; Fri, 20 May 2011 13:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.91.26.6 with SMTP id d6mr668351agj.11.1305922355705; Fri, 20 May 2011 13:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.91.26.6 with SMTP id d6mr668342agj.11.1305922355612; Fri, 20 May 2011 13:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm24-vm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com (nm24-vm1.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com [66.94.236.190]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id r10si512389ybl.0.2011.05.20.13.12.35; Fri, 20 May 2011 13:12:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.190 as permitted sender) client-ip=66.94.236.190; Received: from [66.94.237.195] by nm24.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 May 2011 20:12:35 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.118] by tm6.access.bullet.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 May 2011 20:12:35 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1023.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20 May 2011 20:12:35 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-5 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 256254.78883.bm@omp1023.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 69059 invoked by uid 60001); 20 May 2011 20:12:35 -0000 Message-ID: <921420.66129.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-YMail-OSG: AxiUMT8VM1kPcD3GnqlSrJe9pmlNMtXAiw5aiSCJAwHUYS8 HWHAJxaoab3zFsBKND1opX9htivRqzDFxPAdaKwXYQEsQWwqU6J43yareUn2 c2PRvgK1iSORF8GjUuet1BqPmCSN0Bu6U2_xSNe9p9KYUVrnGHsSf7.fZzky Qq_3YeOWLkQVqJ2E68n4Z4DC9ehdWENqvQAGasRAAQdPlr_zV_bsDG.vD4Kq vzab2hO4EFEzRAOTmf2DyMTHQRCovQQ_wzRxoErfvnzvKfY2g6wrBSUJiSoO i9bjAIycHzSK1DeL5pCpcPS1i5LOKJarKMiAE6DtM2NlStcD7EWSmQz9Jt8n XGqpR9uVr7lVFz9MVvwZJgs5SMyZlyC5rzaTiLXzfkJUF2EMEaeUcSaOVpjm ZVelBNCvhRBZjyuuGOftuXou6qdAGQdzZJVW3wQPhjRQhJL.Epi.nNaJeMfj SDGVbwveW3elMi6WikumPzYdnbIgyysyjioTPfKYV Received: from [99.92.108.41] by web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 20 May 2011 13:12:34 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/567 YahooMailWebService/0.8.111.303096 References: <217730.28216.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 13:12:34 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no" To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 66.94.236.190 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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="0-603664552-1305922354=:66129" --0-603664552-1305922354=:66129 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 It sounds like time for a stroll through all the various descriptors and what they might mean nowadays. I'm not going to do that because my views are probably eccentric, but it does seem useful to take care of a few things. {lo}, {le} and {la} ex[ressions all refer to things (in Lojban's generous sense), things that are (somehow) or are called or are named by what comes after. Sentences involving them say that these things (including one thing but not no thing) somehow have the property ascribed to them. Parallel to these are two other sets, one adding -i and one adding -'i, for the "mass" and the (C-)set of the things referred to by the bare forms. I assume C-sets are not a problem, except that a C-set of things can have 0 members, in which case it does no longer correspond to a bare form. "Mass" is a horrible word in Logjam history, having meant untold numbers of things over the years. At the this point, the most useful thing to be done with it is to take it as the guaranteed collective sense of {lo}, etc. Maybe someday a useful notion of mass will get specified and we will work with it, but it hasn't happened so far. The point of "half a can of oranges" is that it means "half of the oranges in the can" (however many they are), and that is simply (assuming veridicality) {pi mu lo [oranges in a can]}, a no problematic expression, unlike the suggestion {lo pi mu [oranges in a can]}. Unless you're really good at fuzziness, it is best not to draw anything from it for ordinary Lojban (which does have fuzzy numbers when needed). "This can of oranges is in the set of cans of oranges to value 0.5" doesn't halve the can nor the oranges, it at most says this is not an absolutely perfect specimen of a can of oranges (by whatever criteria are in use) -- and making the 0.5 fuzzy doesn't help a bit. It is probably worth noting that the discussion of i9nternal quantifiers in CLL is at least misleading. It is not the case that the internal quantifier says how many broda there are altogether, but only the number of those who are of current interest. This is clearest with {le}, which relies overtly on a selection, and hardest to see in the case of {lo'i}, but applies across the board. The word I forgot last time around is {zo'u} ________________________________ From: Michael Turniansky To: lojban@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 2:16:50 PM Subject: Re: [lojban] "lo no" Well, my canned oranges are fuzzy, then! (I probably should have used them before the sell-by date. They'd've been less fuzzy). :-D On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Ian Johnson wrote: Yes, except if broda is "x1 is a can of oranges", I don't think {lo se pi mu mei broda} is a fuzzy set at all. Half a can of oranges is another can of oranges with its contents cut in half, so it forms {lo se pa mei broda}. (On the other hand this may ultimately be malgli/malrarbau, which would beg the question of how to reasonably briefly express "half a can of oranges" in non-malgli/malrarbau terms.) > >You're right, though, that {se te pi mu mei} does make formal sense, it just has >no similarity to its natlang counterpart whatsoever. Consequently (assuming >{mei} still maintains all its places) {pi mu mei} also has no similarity to its >natlang counterpart whatsoever. > >Good catch though. > > >mu'o mi'e .latros. > > >On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Michael Turniansky >wrote: > > 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. >> >-- >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. -- 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. --0-603664552-1305922354=:66129 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It sounds like time for a stroll through all  the va= rious descriptors and what they might mean nowadays. I'm not going to do th= at because my views are probably eccentric, but it does seem useful to take= care of a few things. {lo}, {le} and {la} ex[ressions all refer to things = (in Lojban's generous sense), things that are (somehow) or are called or ar= e named by what comes after.  Sentences involving them say that these = things (including one thing but not no thing) somehow have the property asc= ribed to them.  Parallel to these are two other sets, one adding -i an= d one adding -'i, for the "mass" and the (C-)set of the things referred to = by the bare forms.  I assume C-sets are not a problem, except that a C= -set of things can have 0 members, in which case it does no longer correspond to a bare form.  = "Mass" is a horrible word in Logjam history, having meant untold numbers of= things over the years.  At the this point, the most useful thing to b= e done with it is to take it as the guaranteed collective sense of {lo}, et= c.  Maybe someday a useful notion of mass will get specified and we wi= ll work with it, but it hasn't happened so far.

The point of "half a= can of oranges" is that it means "half of the oranges in the can" (however= many they are), and that is simply (assuming veridicality) {pi mu lo [oran= ges in a can]}, a no problematic expression, unlike the suggestion {lo pi m= u [oranges in a can]}.

Unless you're really good at fuzziness, it is= best not to draw anything from it for ordinary Lojban (which does have fuz= zy numbers when needed).  "This can of oranges is in the set of cans o= f oranges to value 0.5" doesn't halve the can nor the oranges, it at most says this is not an absolutely perfect specimen of a can of oranges (= by whatever criteria are in use) -- and making the 0.5 fuzzy doesn't help a= bit. 

It is probably worth noting that the discussion of i9nt= ernal quantifiers in CLL is at least misleading.  It is not the case t= hat the internal quantifier says how many broda there are altogether, but o= nly the number of those  who are of current interest.  This is cl= earest with {le}, which relies overtly on a selection, and hardest to see i= n the case of {lo'i}, but applies across the board.

The word I forgo= t last time around is {zo'u}


From: Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
= Sent: Fri, May 20, 2011 2:16:= 50 PM
Subject: Re: [loj= ban] "lo no"

   Well, my canned oranges are fuzzy, then!=  (I probably should have used them before the sell-by date.  They= 'd've been less fuzzy).
           &nbs= p; :-D


 
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado= @gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, except if broda is "x1 is a can= of oranges", I don't think {lo se pi mu mei broda} is a fuzzy set at all. = Half a can of oranges is another can of oranges with its contents cut in ha= lf, so it forms {lo se pa mei broda}. (On the other hand this may ultimatel= y be malgli/malrarbau, which would beg the question of how to reasonably br= iefly express "half a can of oranges" in non-malgli/malrarbau terms.)

You're right, though, that {se te pi mu mei} does make formal sense, it= just has no similarity to its natlang counterpart whatsoever. Consequently= (assuming {mei} still maintains all its places) {pi mu mei} also has no si= milarity to its natlang counterpart whatsoever.

Good catch though.=20


mu'o mi'e .latros.

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Michael Turnian= sky <mturnia= nsky@gmail.com> wrote:
  Actually, in fuzzy logic, a member can indeed be only "half in"= a set.  Therefore cardinalities of other-than-non-negative integers h= as a place in set theory. No reason why lojbaniss shouldn't be able to talk= about it.
 
           &nbs= p;   --gejyspa


 
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 2:03 PM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
On the discussion about pi PA mei: ignore x3s and consider the predica= te:
se te pi mu mei
This is "x1 is a set whose 1/2 members are x2". T= his 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 re= moving 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 solutio= n would be to remove the relation to sets from mei altogether; set {lo se m= ei} 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 import= antly 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 m= i'e .latros.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the G= oogle 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.= google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the G= oogle 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 htt= p://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the G= oogle 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 htt= p://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/lojba= n?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.
--0-603664552-1305922354=:66129--