From lojban+bncCAAQ-4Sq8gQaBGs0VeA@googlegroups.com Tue Aug 16 07:45:31 2011 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QtKtS-0000fL-Ba; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:45:30 -0700 Received: by ywa6 with SMTP id 6sf8236628ywa.16 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:45:19 -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=dokriNbYkT+TQx/xvYyS1RxdjVTsflWnrf5arG1wCUY=; b=yiDwvOxvx8VK8+erb1m/sSLAod62gu8jVgqkGuD2KRD1FoFppp3REW9KhPiEGq3PWj db6+Z3Jsvaje5TON43+9PUJjsuauhxQOpWfOfo2vK7jF3pCgsrr1xNSJekq2A4vCXg35 JXpnBQ5NoFyrfJ0nAT/aNXQYKYM4h+KvBhtw8= Received: by 10.91.113.7 with SMTP id q7mr1001173agm.15.1313505915792; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:45:15 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.91.168.2 with SMTP id v2ls20669444ago.1.gmail; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.190.200 with SMTP id e48mr13005711yhn.8.1313505914863; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 07:45:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.109.2 with SMTP id h2msybc; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 05:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.132.194 with SMTP id e2mr4917110ict.28.1313499139205; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 05:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.132.194 with SMTP id e2mr4917109ict.28.1313499139186; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 05:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org [192.94.73.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ll18si245462pbb.0.2011.08.16.05.52.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 16 Aug 2011 05:52:18 -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 p7GCqHfH002036 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 12:52:17 GMT Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1QtJ7w-0000ot-PC for lojban@googlegroups.com; Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:52:16 +0200 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2011 14:52:16 +0200 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses Message-ID: <20110816125216.GB10697@gonzales> References: <20110811101134.GF10697@gonzales> <1313159555.91794.YahooMailRC@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20110812152917.GK10697@gonzales> <20110813082934.GO10697@gonzales> <20110813124739.GP10697@gonzales> <20110814165654.GA14318@gonzales> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="HYC+c85AsWjroYih" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: , --HYC+c85AsWjroYih Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Monday, 2011-08-15 at 19:54 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > I was using 'xorlo' as shorthand for 'the bpfk gadri > > proposal'. But it seems that the definition there of {lo} *does* > > interact with masses/groups, because its referents are explicitly > > allowed to be groups. >=20 > The referents of "lo" can be anything at all. The referents of "lo > girzu" will be groups. The referents of "lo gerku" could be groups > only if there are groups that are also dogs, which is not a matter to > be decided by "lo". It's part of the semantics of "gerku". Can a group > of things gerku, or can only the members of (certain) groups gerku? > That depends on how "gerku" is defined. Good. > In any case, the BPFK definition of "lo" doesn't mention groups, does > it? Not the definition itself, but later on the wiki page it states that individuals can be groups. If the reader is unfortunate enough to interpret that as including CLL-masses (where by "CLL-mass" I mean to indicate that the upwards closure axiom applies, i.e. a mass brodas if any submass does), then they end up with such oddities as {lo plise cu canko} being possible (where {lo plise} is interpreted as the CLL-mass consisting of an apple and a window, which does indeed both plise and canko). > > My feeling is that the level-mixing ambiguity which allowing group > > satisfaction of broda in {lo broda} would introduce - {lo besna} could > > have its referents being neurons, >=20 > Only if neurons can be a brain. The problem is that in English "to be" > is sometimes used to mean "to constitute". If "lo so'i nirna cu besna" > is true, Yes, I meant for us to say for the sake of argument, ignoring physiological reality, that a brain does consist just of a load of neurons. Or do you want to say that it *doesn't* follow that those neurons collectively {besna}, because the semantics of besna are such that only individual brains satisfy {besna}? And generally that plural predication is reserved for a few special predicates like {sruri}? That might make the ambiguities more manageable. > then I don't see much of a problem in using "lo go'i", i.e. > "lo besna", to refer to the same things that "lo so'i nirna" refers > to. But what are the referents of {lo besna}? Brains, or neurons? If you leave it ambiguous, won't this cause confusion? e.g. how would you translate "these brains are conscious" without being misunderstood as claiming that each of their constituent neurons are? > Whether or not "lo so'i nirna cu besna" can be said to be true is a > matter of the semantics of "besna", not of "lo". >=20 > > and generally {lo gunma be lo broda}, > > with {gunma} as per your definition below, could have its referents > > brodaing - would be an ambiguity too far. >=20 > In my understanding of "gunma", "lo gunma be lo broda cu broda" is not > a tautology, although it is true in many cases. It depends on what > "broda" is. Right - but if you are allowing group satisfaction of brode in {lo brode}, then {lo gunma be lo broda} could be understood as having some brodas as referents - since the brodas do, collectively, {gunma be lo broda}. The brain-neuron level-mixing ambiguity was an example of this, taking {nirna} for {broda}, and assuming that brains gunma neurons. > > And more generally, would you drop CLL's upwards closure axiom for > > "masses", such that you can't have {lo plise} having as referent a group > > whose constituents are an apple and a badger? >=20 > ("lo plise" has apples as referents, so when speaking carefully I > wouldn't say it has a group as referent.) And of course, I wouldn't > say that "lo plise jo'u lo takside cu plise" is true, and so I > wouldn't use "lo plise" instead of "lo plise jo'u lo takside" to refer > to the apple and the badger. Good. > > However, I don't think that it is so useful to have the 'constituent' > > relation as an ordinary selbri. A magic cmavo might be better. >=20 > I think that whether there is a magic cmavo or not, there must > definitely be an "x1 constitute x2" relation as an ordinary selbri. Which holds when x2 has referent a group, x1 has as referents the constituents of that group, and the predication is read collectively on the left? And never holds with a distributive reading on the left? Or can, but only when x1 and x2 both have the same single referent? > > Consider : we would always have {ko'a gunma ko'a}, where we interpret > > collectively on both sides. > "gunma" as a symmetric relationship? We already have "du" for that. This assumed that "ko'a collectively broda" and "the group whose constituents are the referents of ko'a brodas" are equivalent - which below you don't accept. So how do you see collective predication and groups-as-individuals interacting? > And we would still need some other predicate for the cases where we do > need the group to be a new entity. For example, when we want to > quantify over groups. >=20 > > Similarly, the referents of {lo selgunma be lo sruri} could be the > > individuals which as groups sruri, but they could also be the sruris > > themselves - depending on whether {lo sruri} is taken to sumti > > distributively or collectively. >=20 > There's no way of knowing whether "lo selgunma be lo sruri" refers to > people or groups of people, since we don't know whether "lo sruri" is > a group of people that surround the building or a group of groups of > people that surround the building. (It has to be a group of something > in order to fill the x2 of "selgunma" I was expecting non-groups to be able to fill the x1 of gunma, as long as they did so collectively. > ) But that's because so many different things can sruri. >=20 > > And if you want arbitrary sumtis to be able to sumti collectively, > > then getting a good theory of collectivity is necessary even to > > understand {mi}, nevermind {loi}. >=20 > "mi" is hardly ever plural, so let's use "do", but it's the same deal. > I don't see any special problem with it, it's basically equivalent to > "lo te cusku" (at least as far as collectivity goes). No need to > invoke the "mass" morass for it. I just meant that you are now allowing non-distributive readings of {do broda}, so it's important to understand how these work. (Contrast with CLL, where 6.6.4 and the paragraph above it quite explicitly equates {do} with {ro do}) > > So allow me to recap how I would like to understand all this: > > > > The data in the interpretation of an ordinary sumti-6 is just a set of > > individuals, its referents. When it sumtis, whether it does so > > distributively or collectively is ambiguous. >=20 > Yes, but... "when they sumti", please, not "when it sumtis". It's the > referents, not the set, that do it. Agreed. > > {lu'a} and {lu'o} can be used to disambiguate (forming extraordinary > > sumti-6). >=20 > I pass on that one. As I said, I don't think this is something that > makes sense to mark on the sumti. Well... grammatically, {lu'o ko'a} is a sumti. So if you don't want distributivity marking, it would have to actually have different referents from {ko'a}. The only obvious interpretation remaining is that it has as unique referent the group whose constituents are the referents of {ko'a}. Similarly, {lu'a} would have to correspond to the inverse operation - breaking a group into its constituents. But then {lu'a ko'a broda} generally won't be a possible reading of {ko'a broda}. > But according to the lore, in "lu'o lo broda cu brode", "lu'o" is > supposed to say how the brodas brode, not how they broda. >=20 > > Non-fractional quantification unambiguously quantifies over the > > referents. >=20 > Yes, but... not everyone agrees on what the referents of "loi broda" > are. Are they brodas, or are they groups of brodas? That's the > neverending discussion, and neither solution is really satisfactory. >=20 > > The referents of {lo broda} are such that > > ONE OF (currently unsettled) > > (i) each referent satisfies broda, i.e. {ro lo broda cu broda} is > > =A0 =A0tautologous. > > (ii) the referents either each satisfy broda, or they collectively do, > > =A0 =A0i.e. {ro lo broda cu broda .ija lu'o ri cu broda} >=20 > Assuming that "lu'o" means "collectively" and not "lo gunma be". And > also presumably assuming that "collectively" includes such things as > "in pairs" and other distributions, not just "all together". Ugh. I was hoping to avoid that. > For example, if I want to say "my coworkers brought their children to > work today", and suppose that some of my coworkers have children > together. How would you do it with "lu'o", keeping in mind that there > is no child that they all brought together? Assuming {lu'o} works appropriately, why not {ca le cabdei su'o kansa be mi gunka cu kansa su'o panzi be lu'o su'o ri}? (The first {su'o} could be {lo} or {loi} or {le} or {lei}, if you prefer) > > This constitutes the definition of {lo broda}, i.e. no further > > information about the referents can be deduced (modulo usual assumptions > > of contextual relevance). >=20 > I think (i) is the way to go: "lo broda" =3D "zo'e noi ke'a broda", and > not "zo'e noi ro ke'a broda". >=20 > > A group is a kind of individual, so a possible referent of a sumti-6. >=20 > Certainly, for example a referent of "lo girzu". >=20 > > A group has as data a set of individuals - its constituents. >=20 > OK. If you agree that this is all the data in a group, then {girzu} is maybe not a good word to use... how about {zilgri}, defined to kill the x2 and x4 places of {girzu}? > >Things "collectively broda" iff the group whose constituents are > >those things brodas. >=20 > I'm not sure this will always hold. Do we need it for something? Elegance? > > (I think John Cowan would want to disagree here, and say in particular > > that the group with only one constituent should not be distinguished > > from that individual. Is that right, John? >=20 > (I think you mean John Clifford.) (Oops, yes) > > But this seems not to fit with your doi xorxes account of loi.) >=20 > I don't have one account of "loi", I claim there are (at least) two > accounts, and I favor neither. My preference is for forgetting that > "loi" exists. OK, I'm happy to ignore it for now. > > The exact semantics of when a group brodas depends on broda. Perhaps the > > x1 of sruri is upwards closed, but the x1 of plise certainly isn't. >=20 > Yes, I agree with that. Martin --HYC+c85AsWjroYih Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk5KaAAACgkQULC7OLX7LNbhWQCfVn0kOnff5GN7ttbCsypQajso OWwAnjNAtsglpdvZLSCn6FbyVtUwsMIc =KIcb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --HYC+c85AsWjroYih--