From lojban+bncCOib25n_BhCL3YTvBBoEUDUEbQ@googlegroups.com Sat May 28 10:19:22 2011 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QQNAU-0004An-Bw; Sat, 28 May 2011 10:19:21 -0700 Received: by fxm14 with SMTP id 14sf4399336fxm.16 for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 10:19:11 -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:sender :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:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=aEfINLtyI6+QWRjjBD2k8xIiyVZrCujRVE8IJU2g0sw=; b=pGx4JYPJecuPigAALpYTG00znwtWTf0s8fykUhyz1wd7qS8+X229CIzGMB3ZHrmvty 4vYu0DOViDGFSx+qJp6kBlYtSxCmFDGtJVH8xL9ETeAxy5KtJNcb6H8w0D//0+BnDRpl HaQOd34GeoAVg1qMgKD0RmgvD3sjk4E331c2E= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender: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 :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=TO6VqifG4QPZkdKhd8QOCuJGrCGrNnELRuFMBZEwPJDuhKsoAeskj8bpji9f/1BtGg vyEyx7ORkCz3xiVYnLApoyCyYtoMe7vst2eHwatVclj6AyiLq5XV6jNRCuPmCKagBt2x gNIfBCHhTPjDOW1SAlzDaPyq9HyF5/WYYlbLI= Received: by 10.223.5.16 with SMTP id 16mr622675fat.25.1306603147074; Sat, 28 May 2011 10:19:07 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.16.207 with SMTP id p15ls1353973bka.3.gmail; Sat, 28 May 2011 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.142.195 with SMTP id r3mr421303bku.1.1306603145913; Sat, 28 May 2011 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.142.195 with SMTP id r3mr421302bku.1.1306603145888; Sat, 28 May 2011 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f43.google.com (mail-bw0-f43.google.com [209.85.214.43]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i2si607217fat.1.2011.05.28.10.19.05 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sat, 28 May 2011 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.43 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.43; Received: by bwz14 with SMTP id 14so2322109bwz.30 for ; Sat, 28 May 2011 10:19:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.19.74 with SMTP id z10mr2951138bka.183.1306603144891; Sat, 28 May 2011 10:19:04 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.166.130 with HTTP; Sat, 28 May 2011 10:19:04 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <980254.25606.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <08d1ce1c-1d1c-451f-abbe-5e7f99ea79e1@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <980254.25606.qm@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Sat, 28 May 2011 13:19:04 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] "part of things" fallacy From: ".arpis." To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.43 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rpglover64@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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555a47e504c2504a45940e5 --00032555a47e504c2504a45940e5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The "lo no" discussion got above my head rather quickly. Is a relatively simple summary possible? On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:53 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > Well, neither cars nor planes are symmmetrical in the desired way, but I > take > this is not really the point, which is to make a case for non-integer > numrical > internal quantifiers. As for the "part of things" fallacy, I don't see how > it > is made, since we explicitly make the distinction wherever needed. To the > main > point, however, I need only(I hope) that the internal quantifiers are > cardinals, > a count ot things, which -- some popular usage to the contrary > notwithstanding > -- can only be by wholes. What we can do in Lojjban is make parts > (pagbu?) the > wholes which are counted. So one pie may also be represented as 8 slices > or one > plane as a left half and a right (somewhat less naturally) and so on, as > needed. I seem to recall their are yet other devices for doing this, but > am > still flying blind. > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Escape Landsome > To: lojban > Sent: Sat, May 28, 2011 8:49:21 AM > Subject: [lojban] "part of things" fallacy > > Hello, > > I read in the "lo no" thread that there was a "part of things" > fallacy. Imho, this is only due to a "holistic" property of selbri, > that is : an assertion can be valid concerning a sum of things without > the same assertion holding for each things (parts). > > For instance, let's say A is a half-car, and B the symmetrical other > half of the car, then A+B is the complete car, > > and : > > A does not ride > B does not ride > but > A+B rides > > There was a point whether rational numbers should be regarded as > (possible) non-null quantitative, I think this should be the case when > the thing that it refers to is parted symmetrically. > > For instance, a plane has a plane (no pun intended) of symmetry, so > speaking of a 1/2 plane is valid to me, provided the plane is cut > along its symmetry plane. > > Similarly, you would speak of p/n applepie. > > -- > 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. > > -- mu'o mi'e .arpis. -- 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. --00032555a47e504c2504a45940e5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The "lo no" discussion got above my head rather quickly.

I= s a relatively simple summary possible?

O= n Sat, May 28, 2011 at 11:53 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wro= te:
Well, neither cars nor planes are symmmetri= cal in the desired way, but I take
this is not really the point, which is to make a case for non-integer numri= cal
internal quantifiers.=A0 As for the "part of things" fallacy, I d= on't see how it
is made, since we explicitly make the distinction wherever needed.=A0=A0 To= the main
point, however, I need only(I hope) that the internal quantifiers are cardi= nals,
a count ot things, which -- some popular usage to the contrary notwithstand= ing
-- can only be by wholes.=A0 What we=A0 can do in Lojjban is make parts (pa= gbu?) the
wholes which are counted.=A0 So one pie may also be represented=A0as 8 slic= es or one
plane as a left half and a right (somewhat less naturally) and so on, as needed.=A0 I seem to recall=A0 their are yet other devices for doing this, = but am
still flying blind.



----- Original Message ----
From: Escape Landsome <escaaape@gm= ail.com>
To: lojban <lojban@googlegrou= ps.com>
Sent: Sat, May 28, 2011 8:49:21 AM
Subject: [lojban] "part of things" fallacy

Hello,

I read in the "lo no" thread that there was a "part of thing= s"
fallacy.=A0 Imho, this is only due to a "holistic" property of se= lbri,
that is : an assertion can be valid concerning a sum of things without
the same assertion holding for each things (parts).

For instance, let's say A is a half-car, and B the symmetrical other half of the car, then A+B is the complete car,

and :

A does not ride
B does not ride
but
A+B rides

There was a point whether rational numbers should be regarded as
(possible) non-null quantitative, I think this should be the case when
the thing that it refers to is parted symmetrically.

For instance, a plane has a plane (no pun intended) of symmetry, so
speaking of a 1/2 plane is valid to me, provided the plane is cut
along its symmetry plane.

Similarly, you would speak of p/n applepie.

--
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=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.




--
mu'o mi= 'e .arpis.

--
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.
--00032555a47e504c2504a45940e5--