From lojban+bncCAAQjaek8gQaBOGdBAE@googlegroups.com Mon Aug 15 05:39:54 2011 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QswSN-0005dq-J2; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:39:53 -0700 Received: by gyc15 with SMTP id 15sf8808215gyc.16 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:39:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent: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; bh=XXo8iQDWUQTOcCUKt0UU4JFQFJgjvIOdHeKDt+ULISU=; b=4D+dmXIfJLVWzjLdUmntCQPzx0vMMMWL9fda7SMaCr7OB+/dAvMkeJrgfb/dT2NGpp aTDigfkLSTiiLJn9V3uwEIzrLOM/LSRNkcKv4g8RU3H/t//k7rOxqykdSrxac30GZNT7 bv2IQ5xezsf8IaYmt3GLTxMVrNBBOd+Yzn6jI= Received: by 10.146.62.28 with SMTP id k28mr580590yaa.29.1313411981376; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:39:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.204.19 with SMTP id g19ls19273938anq.5.gmail; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.116.194 with SMTP id g42mr9480074yhh.3.1313411980274; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 05:39:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.109.2 with SMTP id h2msybc; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.170.232 with SMTP id p68mr9103352yhl.1.1313398848054; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.170.232 with SMTP id p68mr9103350yhl.1.1313398848043; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:00:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org [192.94.73.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kr11si158127pbb.1.2011.08.15.02.00.46 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 15 Aug 2011 02:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19; Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4]) by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p7F90jvo019798 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 09:00:46 GMT Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1Qst2L-00035G-Qq for lojban@googlegroups.com; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:00:45 +0200 Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:00:45 +0200 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses Message-ID: <20110815090045.GV10697@gonzales> References: <20110811101134.GF10697@gonzales> <1313159555.91794.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110812152917.GK10697@gonzales> <20110813082934.GO10697@gonzales> <20110813124739.GP10697@gonzales> <1313250355.61318.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="czRehjsqUdpaVUeF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1313250355.61318.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 X-cunselcu'a-valsi: rutni User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org 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: , --czRehjsqUdpaVUeF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Saturday, 2011-08-13 at 08:45 -0700 - John E Clifford : > Well, picky picky, but 1) ain't no sets here (in the usual meaning of > sets -- and, for xorxes, in any sense at all). There are just the > things (or the whole they comprise) I didn't really mean to import any set theoretical baggage with the term 'set'... if a sumti has referents, which you and xorxes seem to agree on, then we can consider the set of its referents. > 2) it would be better, rather than having an Ambiguous flag, either to > have a case without a flag at all or allow both flags to fly so that=20 > we could pick the one that fit the situation. I'm not sure what you mean here. What would be difference between 'neither' and 'both'? > 3. careful with gunma, as always: the referents take on the bridi > collectively, but there is nothing else there (xorxes view). > 4. > external quantifiers of lo, loi, and probably the rest all=20 > shift to distributive mode (and fractional quantifiers are fine, just as = "half=20 > the students wore red ties is). Otherwise (and this is mainly about how = what=20 > you meant was expressed) your summary is fine, > i. ro lo broda cu broda is not a tautology, since the individuals in lo = broda=20 > may be broda only collectively (lo sruri be lo dinju, e.g.), in which cas= e, the=20 > sentence is false. > ii. ditto > iii. this is probably a definition of sorts, otherwise a tautology -- or= would=20 > be if 'gunma' were actually defined in some appropriate way. > de falso omnia so no contradiction we need worry about (the gunma of all= =20 > non-gunma would probably lead to some sort of problem, though maybe not, = since,=20 > for me, every gunma is in itself). [These points dealt with / rendered obsolete by other parts of this thread] > again,, 'ro lo broda' need not be the same as 'ro broda', which is, at be= st, 'ro=20 > lo ro broda'. This is another issue... the current gadri proposal quite explicitly equates PA broda with PA lo broda. There is already a comment about this at the bottom of the page. > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Martin Bays > To: lojban@googlegroups.com > Sent: Sat, August 13, 2011 7:47:39 AM > Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses >=20 > * Saturday, 2011-08-13 at 05:41 -0600 - Jonathan Jones : >=20 > > On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > >=20 > > > * Friday, 2011-08-12 at 23:04 -0600 - Jonathan Jones : > > > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > > So in all cases, the referents of {lo/loi broda} are entities whi= ch > > > > > individually broda? > > > > > > > > No, just loi. lo is completely non specific. > > > > > > I'm not sure what "non specific" means, but... > >=20 > > Non specific means that {lo broda} is not specific as to whether the > > referents are being referred to collectively or distributively. As J. C= owan > > said, to specifically refer to them collectively, use {loi}, to specifi= cally > > refer to them distributively, use {PA lo} (where PA is any cmavo or cma= vo > > cluster of selma'o PA) or {lu'a lo}. > >=20 > > {lo} is completely generic, and distributive or collective reference wh= en > > using only {lo} must be determined via context. This is why in {lo tadn= i cu > > sruri le dinju gi'e krixa}, {lo tadni} are collectively {sruri le dinju= }, > > but distributively {krixa}, because {lo tadni} does not specify whether > > those which {tadni} are distributive or collective. >=20 > OK. I would like to semi-formalise this understanding as follows: >=20 > The interpretation of a sumti (or more accurately: a sumti-6) consists > of a set of referents and a distributivity flag. The distributivity flag > has three settings: Distributive, Collective, and Ambiguous. When used > in a bridi, the bridi is respectively claimed of each referent, or of > the referents as a gunma, or ambiguously between the two options. > {lo broda} and {loi broda} both return Sumti6 whose referents each > satisfy broda; the difference is just that the flag is set to Ambiguous > in the first and Collective in the second. lu'a and lu'o reset the flag, > but have no other effect. When quantifying (non-fractionally) over > a sumti, the flag is ignored. >=20 > Does this accurately capture the intention of xorlo? >=20 > > > all I'm claiming is that > > > {ro lo broda cu broda} is a tautology, where {ro lo broda} quantifies > > > distributively over the referents of {lo broda}. Is this controversia= l? > >=20 > > How could it be controversial? >=20 > Good. >=20 > My point then was that the following three assertions are inconsistent: >=20 > (i) {ro lo broda cu broda} is a tautology > (ii) {ro loi broda cu broda} is a tautology > (iii) loi broda =3D=3D lo gunma be lo broda (i.e. have the same referents) >=20 > Indeed, we can derive a contradiction with broda set to {na'e gunma}: >=20 > ro loi na'e gunma cu na'e gunma (by (ii)) > ro lo gunma be lo na'e gunma cu na'e gunma (by (iii)) > su'o gunma cu na'e gunma (by (i)) >=20 > > Also, IIRC, if you are using an outer quantifier, you don't actually ne= ed > > lo. ({PA lo broda} =3D {PA broda}) >=20 > (sure, I'm just leaving the 'lo' in to emphasise that the {lo broda} in > {ro lo broda} has a meaning of its own, with the {ro} then quantifying > over its referents) >=20 > Martin >=20 > --=20 > 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@googlegr= oups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?hl=3Den. --czRehjsqUdpaVUeF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk5I4D0ACgkQULC7OLX7LNafbACglUljt4B8fLpY0LIWx+LiIKam 54wAoMXp+6VWp1fkEFaoK4jbcb+r1LE1 =Rxs4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --czRehjsqUdpaVUeF--