From lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhDvsNvyBBoE70OdRw@googlegroups.com Thu Aug 25 16:19:24 2011 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QwjCj-0003lh-04; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:19:23 -0700 Received: by gwb11 with SMTP id 11sf3877842gwb.16 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:19:14 -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=710XRA7Mv6OtxvJ5Z11ZWI4+exh2l/MvCyCmCbTNea4=; b=b13P5lartocglFazuIrSqDx+0kQcW2jfY+pB4EPEMJFx4F6lhbaOq7BrbSJhLIihep oFHIbDoU7a5nb+KwUFOwivZ/ksYTF88JXvN1mTsDfZSXZ+fZ4VDUll4YbJIc8H6yoTfL tLS70d93uRbpkhUKhRYufuuTiONqSmAqjVSeI= Received: by 10.101.217.16 with SMTP id u16mr72990anq.27.1314314351822; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:19:11 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.130.212 with SMTP id u20ls701795ibs.4.gmail; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.156.138 with SMTP id z10mr457473icw.3.1314314350906; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.156.138 with SMTP id z10mr457472icw.3.1314314350896; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:19:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kr11si36862pbb.1.2011.08.25.16.19.10 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:19:10 -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 p7PNJATj005943 for ; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 23:19:10 GMT Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75) (envelope-from ) id 1QwjCX-0000uJ-Rl for lojban@googlegroups.com; Fri, 26 Aug 2011 01:19:09 +0200 Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2011 01:19:09 +0200 From: Martin Bays To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] xorlo and masses Message-ID: <20110825231909.GG13699@gonzales> References: <20110820195330.GB19624@SDF.ORG> <20110822102301.GA24775@SDF.ORG> <20110823230437.GC19213@gonzales> <20110824154151.GA3105@gonzales> <20110825090633.GC13699@gonzales> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="JbKQpFqZXJ2T76Sg" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6 X-cunselcu'a-valsi: cilta 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: , --JbKQpFqZXJ2T76Sg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable * Thursday, 2011-08-25 at 19:11 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > I think I now agree that Carlsonite Kinds are an appropriate way of > > handling {lo'e} and can consistently be allowed as a reading of {lo}. > > > > I do still have a couple of questions about how Kinds should work in > > Lojban. > > > > Firstly: there is the question of whether Kinds are in our domain of > > quantification. >=20 > My answer is that sometimes they are and sometimes they are not, > depending on what "our domain of quantification" happens to be at the > time. Meaning that quantification can be over ordinary individuals, and it can be over Kinds, but it can't be over a mixture of the two? So our universe has multiple sorts, and {ro da} can be quantifying over any one of them - but only one at a time? I'd be happy with that, and it seems to deal with your "two favourite desserts" issue. It would be nice to have a way of explicitly indicating that quantification is over usual individuals and not Kinds. I'd say that {da poi du} would do that (or {da poi zilmintu} if we want {du} to be magic), as long as we ignore Kinds made from singletons. You mention below "[not] just two levels of abstraction, concrete and abstract, but lots and lots of levels with different degree of abstraction"; could this mean more sorts? If so, what are you thinking of? I guess you could have Kinds of Kinds, though maybe that's more trouble than it's worth... > > I think the answer has to be no, because it interferes with our usual > > ideas of quantification. For example, if I have two children A and B, it > > seems we would have to admit > > =A0 =A0mi rirni ci da .i je sa'e lo'i se rirni be mi cu du .abu ce by c= e lo'e > > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0se rirni be mi, > > which is just silly. >=20 > Right. Kinds aren't quantified together with their manifestations, and > we rarely want to quantify over kinds of children, and especially in > the panzi rather than the verba sense of "child". >=20 > But that doesn't mean we never want to quantify over kinds. We should > be able to say things like "I have two favourite desserts". >=20 > > So we have to accept that {lo'e mulna'u du da} and {lo'e pemfinti cu > > finti da poi pemci} are both false. This does seem to agree with English > > bare plurals - "natural numbers are equal to something" and "poets write > > some poems" are both false. >=20 > Would you object to "natural numbers are equal to something (namely > themselves)" No, but I don't see how to analyse it with generics - I'd say that's a clear case of quantification, i.e. that it's {ro da poi mulna'u cu du de ne da}. You can't say "something (namely themselves) is/are equal to natural numbers" (the problem isn't the pronoun position - you can say "something (namely itself) is equal to any natural number" ) > and "poets write some poems, but most poems are written by non-poets"? I don't think 'poets' is a generic there, any more than 'non-poets' is. > I wouldn't. >=20 > > Secondly, there's the simple question of what *is* true of Kinds. This > > doesn't seem to be seriously addressed by Carlson or his progeny, but we > > have to address it. > > > > The non-commutativity example above narrows our options, but I see > > nothing wrong with declaring: > > lo'e broda cu brodi lo'e brodu > > iff > > the set { (x,y) | broda(x) /\ brodu(y) /\ brodi(x,y) } is Large in > > { (x,y) | broda(x) /\ brodu(y) } >=20 > But I want to be able to say "dogs have been known to eat carrots" > even when the set { (x,y) | dog(x) /\ carrot(y) /\ eat(x,y) } does not > seem to be Large in { (x,y) | dog(x) /\ carrot(y) } Again, I don't think 'carrots' is a generic there. Actually, doesn't it just mean {se zgana lo nu su'o gerku su'o najgenja cu citka}? If not, what did you mean by it and how would you like to Lojbanise it? More generally, could you indicate (however vaguely) what you think the truth conditions for {lo'e broda lo'e brodi cu brodu} should be? > > where the Large subsets form a contextually defined filter - i.e. the > > intersection of Large and Large is Large, and the empty set is not > > Large. > > > > Working directly with the product like this avoids the non-commutativity > > problems (failure of Fubini). > > > > Some predications will not be assigned a truth value (i.e. we don't > > require the filter to be an ultrafilter); e.g. it would be reasonable > > for {lo'e mulna'u cu mleca lo'e mulna'u} to be neither true nor false. > > Similarly for {lo'e narmecmulna'u}. > > > > It's crucial that brodi was a basic predicate, not something involving > > quantifiers, but that's fine. > > > > Problem: this doesn't give a natural translation of e.g. "poets write > > poems". Under the above semantics, {lo'e pemfinti cu finti lo'e pemci} > > is probably false, and so is {lo'e pemfinti cu finti su'o pemci}. {lo'e > > pemfinti cu ckaji lo ka finti su'o pemci} would be true, but maybe > > that's cheating. > > > > Thoughts? >=20 > I think most of the problem is in getting levels of abstraction mixed > up. (And by this I don't mean just two levels of abstraction, concrete > and abstract, but lots and lots of levels with different degree of > abstraction.) Martin --JbKQpFqZXJ2T76Sg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAk5W2G0ACgkQULC7OLX7LNZiCACdHUWOVwguYJ5/XLdeuq9NjOaL PuwAnR3D22aVcwz5PG4rM2+thzuJHgN7 =5hHA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --JbKQpFqZXJ2T76Sg--