From lojban+bncCML0xpmUARD8kbzxBBoE80Qs_A@googlegroups.com Tue Jul 26 11:36:06 2011 Received: from mail-yi0-f61.google.com ([209.85.218.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QlmTu-0007M2-SH; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:36:05 -0700 Received: by yie12 with SMTP id 12sf983107yie.16 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:35:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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; bh=fLrLFdvvGl5OwHVYOvQ8YdEltjTsNDjdFGCUgn/2bgE=; b=0XmdyN1rz8P1rYcNbEtl+toID5h33vPS0oiDo/pSiYO+gJEO57R7okeCeKxIdQqMZ2 xe5lP7/+A+yNHlXR3J5wQlYvMaaRR43yshQuqjx+kajylks+7wEwgtnybKOi5a4d+Pue 00Y0RYIYLbJ68a4rLgFrCo8IsN5U46DaNwB98= Received: by 10.150.230.17 with SMTP id c17mr27042ybh.55.1311705340636; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:35:40 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.200.31 with SMTP id c31ls3091466anq.1.gmail; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:35:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.170.198 with SMTP id p46mr480787yhl.47.1311705339003; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:35:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.170.198 with SMTP id p46mr480786yhl.47.1311705338982; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gx0-f173.google.com (mail-gx0-f173.google.com [209.85.161.173]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e62si520886yhm.1.2011.07.26.11.35.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.173; Received: by mail-gx0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 26so577545gxk.32 for ; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:35:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.14.139 with SMTP id g11mr7738287faa.82.1311705338588; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:35:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.74.194 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jul 2011 11:35:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1311695892.73678.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <87BB9A86-430F-4F64-9CD4-D8A5BD33B69A@yahoo.com> <1311695892.73678.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 14:35:38 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] bu'a From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.173 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@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=001517473678c1af2f04a8fd3266 --001517473678c1af2f04a8fd3266 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 What is hackish about it is the syntax. In {ro bu'a zo'u da bu'a}, {ro bu'a} is syntactically a sumti, consisting, presumably, of all x1's of whatever referent the {bu'a} ultimately has (thinking classically; in intuitionistic logic, what I am saying is not entirely sound), since that's what it means elsewhere. And yet then the thing that is actually quantified over is a collection of predicates. It's just an arbitrary decision plopped into the CLL, changing the type of a variable abruptly. My gripe about it is irrationally amplified by my irrational mental attempts to statically type Lojban, but even putting that aside I'd say it's a valid gripe, albeit irrelevant from a practical standpoint since predicate quantification has seen no use so far as far as I know, except in my example here . We're also missing second order predicates, or at least things that serve as convenient predicates in second order discussions, in general. Saying something like "{mintu} is the opposite of {drata}", even with {me'ei} (of selma'o LE, which converts selbri into abstract predicate sumti; I do NOT think quoted words are suitable as placeholders for abstract predicates), becomes: me'ei mintu cu dukti me'ei drata ....???? and I ultimately have no way of writing down the dukti3. (I would be pleased if you could, actually.) The only precise way of saying this (yes, I admit the English is as imprecise as a statement involving {dukti} with no dukti3, but I hope you can see the precise meaning that I want to encapsulate) that I can see is first order to its core: ro da ro de ro di zo'u go da de di mintu gi da de di to'e drata mu'o mi'e latros On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:58 AM, John E Clifford wrote: > I'm not sure what you take as hackish about it. Simply allows quantifiers > over predicate variables, which is all that is required. To be sure, it is > does not seem to allow such quantifiers any place but prenex ('ko'a (cu) suo > bu'a' don't seem to compute), but the embedded quantifiers are a main source > of difficulty (pace xorxes) in reconstructing the logic of Lojban, so this > may not be a flaw. What then is hackish? The pattern of real Logic is > followed (less a mess of sub- and superscripts that are largely irrelevant > to Lojban). Yes, Lojban is based on first order, but, then, so is second > order and Lojban allows that extension (and, in principle, all the other > orders on up). > As I said, part of the problem is to figure just what a predicate is in > Lojban. There are several candidates (sticking to unary predicates for > simplicity): the things that have the property, the set of things that have > the property, the characteristic function of that set, and the property, > which may or may not be what a Montagovian would call a property. Three of > these have clear expressions in Lojban, but the characteristic function does > not really, but is the best candidate for the predicate in what follows in > second order claims. There is talk of the lambda calculus but it is > unimplemented, so far as I can see (and is second order). > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Ian Johnson > *To:* lojban@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Tue, July 26, 2011 9:24:10 AM > *Subject:* Re: [lojban] bu'a > > Erm, poor phrasing; I meant that there is no easy way to get between those > three things. > > .u'u .i mu'o mi'e latros > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Ian Johnson wrote: > >> Quantification over predicates was implemented in a horrifyingly hackish >> way. This alone is a problem, in my opinion. There is also, at least not in >> the main body of the language, an easy way to go from predicate-as-function >> (selbri) to predicate-as-concrete-object (typical sumti) to >> predicate-as-abstract-object. >> >> Lojban is definitely based on FOPL, though, not SOPL, and not a bizarre >> hybrid of the two. >> >> mu'o mi'e latros >> >> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:51 PM, John E. Clifford wrote: >> >>> Lojban isn't clearly of one order or the other, since it treats sets and >>> properties and the like on a par with tree and dogs. There is no particular >>> problem in grammar or vocabulary to treating properties of predicates and >>> quantification over them. There are some arguments about the correct way to >>> express a predicate as an argument, but that seems to revolve around just >>> what a predicate is in Lojban ontology. All the answers yield grammatical >>> and intelligible results, though sometimes different ones. None of them >>> seem particularly stilted, but I haven't seen enough cases to get a feel for >>> that. >>> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On Jul 24, 2011, at 14:13, Ian Johnson wrote: >>> >>> I think bu'a/bu'e/bu'i would be much much much more useful if Lojban were >>> a second order language, because then we could talk about the existence of >>> predicates with desired properties in a non-stilted fashion. As a first >>> order language, though, with second order mechanisms requiring stilted >>> language, I don't think bu'a/bu'e/bu'i are especially useful. >>> >>> mu'o mi'e latros >>> >>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:01 PM, tijlan < >>> jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> What is your view on the bu'a series? Potentially useful? Totally >>>> pointless? I've never used it myself, but I could be missing some >>>> important aspect of Lojban as a logical language. >>>> >>>> mu'o mi'e tijlan >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. > -- 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. --001517473678c1af2f04a8fd3266 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What is hackish about it is the syntax. In {ro bu'a zo'u da bu'= a}, {ro bu'a} is syntactically a sumti, consisting, presumably, of all = x1's of whatever referent the {bu'a} ultimately has (thinking class= ically; in intuitionistic logic, what I am saying is not entirely sound), s= ince that's what it means elsewhere. And yet then the thing that is act= ually quantified over is a collection of predicates. It's just an arbit= rary decision plopped into the CLL, changing the type of a variable abruptl= y. My gripe about it is irrationally amplified by my irrational mental atte= mpts to statically type Lojban, but even putting that aside I'd say it&= #39;s a valid gripe, albeit irrelevant from a practical standpoint since pr= edicate quantification has seen no use so far as far as I know, except in m= y example here.

We're also missing second order predicates, or at least things that= serve as convenient predicates in second order discussions, in general. Sa= ying something like "{mintu} is the opposite of {drata}", even wi= th {me'ei} (of selma'o LE, which converts selbri into abstract pred= icate sumti; I do NOT think quoted words are suitable as placeholders for a= bstract predicates), becomes:
me'ei mintu cu dukti me'ei drata ....????
and I ultimately have = no way of writing down the dukti3. (I would be pleased if you could, actual= ly.) The only precise way of saying this (yes, I admit the English is as im= precise as a statement involving {dukti} with no dukti3, but I hope you can= see the precise meaning that I want to encapsulate) that I can see is firs= t order to its core:
ro da ro de ro di zo'u go da de di mintu gi da de di to'e drata
=
mu'o mi'e latros
On Tue, Jul 26, = 2011 at 11:58 AM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
I'm not sure what you take as = hackish about it.=A0 Simply allows quantifiers over predicate variables, wh= ich is all that is required.=A0 To be sure, it is does not seem to allow su= ch quantifiers any place but prenex ('ko'a (cu) suo bu'a' d= on't seem to compute), but the embedded quantifiers are a main source o= f difficulty (pace xorxes) in reconstructing the logic of Lojban, so this m= ay not be a flaw.=A0 What then is hackish?=A0 The pattern of real Logic is = followed (less a mess of sub- and superscripts that are largely irrelevant = to Lojban).=A0 Yes, Lojban is based on first order, but, then, so is second= order and Lojban allows that extension (and, in principle, all the other o= rders on up).
As I said, part of the problem is to figure just what a predicate is i= n Lojban.=A0 There are several candidates (sticking to unary predicates for simplicity)= : the things that have the property, the set of things that have the proper= ty, the characteristic function of that set, and the property, which may or= may not be what a Montagovian would call a property.=A0 Three of these hav= e clear expressions in Lojban, but the characteristic function does not rea= lly, but is the best candidate for the predicate in what follows in second = order claims. There is talk of the lambda calculus but it is unimplemented,= so far as I can see (and is second order).

= From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com= >
To: lojban@google= groups.com
Sent: Tue,= July 26, 2011 9:24:10 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] bu'a

Erm, poor phrasing; I meant that there is no easy way to get between those = three things.

.u'u .i mu'o mi'e latros

On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
Quantification over predicates was implement= ed in a horrifyingly hackish way. This alone is a problem, in my opinion. T= here is also, at least not in the main body of the language, an easy way to= go from predicate-as-function (selbri) to predicate-as-concrete-object (ty= pical sumti) to predicate-as-abstract-object.

Lojban is definitely based on FOPL, though, not SOPL, and not a bizarre= hybrid of the two.

mu'o mi'e latros

On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 2:51 PM= , John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:
Lojban isn't clearly of one or= der or the other, since it treats sets and properties and the like on a par= with tree and dogs. =A0There is no particular problem in grammar or vocabu= lary to treating properties of predicates and quantification over them. =A0= There are some arguments about the correct way to express a predicate as an= argument, but that seems to revolve around just what a predicate is in Loj= ban ontology. =A0All the answers yield grammatical and intelligible results= , though sometimes different ones. =A0None of them seem particularly stilte= d, but I haven't seen enough cases to get a feel for that.

Sent from my iPad

On Jul 24, 20= 11, at 14:13, Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
=
I think bu'a/bu'e/bu'i would be much much much more useful= if Lojban were a second order language, because then we could talk about t= he existence of predicates with desired properties in a non-stilted fashion= . As=A0a first order language, though, with second order mechanisms requiri= ng stilted language, I don't think bu'a/bu'e/bu'i are espec= ially useful.
=A0
mu'o mi'e latros
=A0
On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 12:01 PM, tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com> wrote:
What is your view on the bu'a ser= ies? Potentially useful? Totally
pointless? I've never used it mysel= f, but I could be missing some
important aspect of Lojban as a logical language.

mu'o mi'e = tijlan

--
You received this message becau= se 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+unsubsc= ribe@googlegroups.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 &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.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 &= quot;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 &= quot;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.
--001517473678c1af2f04a8fd3266--