Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LvIeR-0004b9-EB for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:04:43 -0700 Received: from qw-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.92.149]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LvIeN-0004ap-O5 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:04:43 -0700 Received: by qw-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so482330qwc.58 for ; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:04:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=TRAXd0EQTtYbGNczXtQOBVfHzWIupjevEnHN3NkfcUs=; b=DRuQt9IdWZpL7QmEDSR5JQGi1NhMOA+TreKAhmf77MLIPaKpUNuyxSHt67W1ENnael xl8qTf9rj2/O9JVHMOafF112PC/ym1YoSKJfXTE/BKhbpTRurYhTjVWZttWPzv/f0MeW 0IGvVq1N9yVoDb1CFjuHs+t0pzThEWjn8Grcw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=D3q8IfJTXSrwi7Hjvf4AGt8M6w9mBvvo/tzq9wpYGNFMZ/xoe0+79HqZUB2BFOJnfy HIOxWz5/u23qV7tYgGSu3GZir9BpdN6YCipTP8rCHq0zRcjJVgoGcc8rHR6wUygagK9D NtRXXsUg5L5xNR/AdDfG36GoybEyiHpOPaxY4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.91.205 with SMTP id o13mr4447468vcm.92.1240092278590; Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:04:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090418215529.GE17828@digitalkingdom.org> References: <5715b9300904181435r70e35abdx57bd1d39e4a4174d@mail.gmail.com> <20090418215529.GE17828@digitalkingdom.org> Date: Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:04:38 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9300904181504n6fe3d7f7ga6cc10258e5c24ef@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: order of sumti effects their meaning? From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f9213ec10c770467db7b00 X-Spam_score: -2.6 X-Spam_score_int: -25 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "chain.digitalkingdom.org", has identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: I guess where I'm confused is this: 5.5) de poi gerku cu batci ro da poi prenu There-is-a-Y which is-a-dog which-bites every Y which is-a-person Some dog bites everyone. 5.6) ro da poi prenu cu se batci de poi gerku Every-X which is-a-person is-bitten-by some-Y which is-a-dog. [...] Content analysis details: (-2.6 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] X-archive-position: 1558 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Content-Length: 7058 --001485f9213ec10c770467db7b00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I guess where I'm confused is this: 5.5) de poi gerku cu batci ro da poi prenu There-is-a-Y which is-a-dog which-bites every Y which is-a-person Some dog bites everyone. 5.6) ro da poi prenu cu se batci de poi gerku Every-X which is-a-person is-bitten-by some-Y which is-a-dog. So, in 5.5 "de poi gerku" equates to "some single thing which is a dog" but in 5.6 it's "some thing which is a dog". Why? When you quantify a variable does that automatically make all following variables in terms of it? - Luke Bergen On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Robin Lee Powell < rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 05:35:23PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote: > > so I just read through section 5 of chapter16 of the refgram and > > am confused by this line: "since it is the order in which the > > variables appear that matters we can say ...". > > > > basically in "de poi gerku cu batci ro da poi prenu" "de poi > > gerku" is translated as "there-is-a-Y which is a dog" but in "ro > > da poi prenu cu se batci de poi gerku" the same string is > > translated as "_some_ Y which is a dog". > > Those mean exactly the some thing, AFAICT. What makes you think > they are different? > > The order matters because we stole this construct from predicate > logic; understanding that is really required to understand these > sentences. The issue is binding of numbers on the variables. In > the first sentence, there is 1 de, some dog. It bites every human; > many da. That is, the single de scopes over the many da. "There is > a (single) dog which bit every human". > > In the second sentence, there are many da, but they scope over the > single de, which means that there is a single de *for each of the > many humans*. "Every human is bitten by a dog (but they need not > all be the same dog)". > > *Technically*, da/de with no number is "su'o da", so the > hyper-explicit versions are: > > "There exists at least one particular dog(s) which, by themself/ves, > bit every human." > > "For every human, there exists at least one particular dog(s) which > bit him/her." > > The issue is order of quantification, not order of variables as > such. You can make the first sentence into the second by doing: > > ro da de zo'u de poi gerku cu batci ro da poi prenu > > This puts the specification of quantifier scoping out front, to make > it more explicit that we've got predicate logic scoping and weird > shit may occur. > > -Robin > > -- > They say: "The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons." > And I'm thinking: "Does it even occur to you to try for something > other than the default outcome?" -- http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre > http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/*** > http://www.lojban.org/ > > > > --001485f9213ec10c770467db7b00 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I guess where I'm confused is this:

5.5) de poi gerku cu ba= tci
ro da poi prenu
There-is-a-Y which is-a-dog which-bit= es
every Y which is-a-person
Some dog bites everyone.
5.6) ro da poi pren= u cu se batci
de poi gerku
Every-X which is-a-person is-b= itten-by some-Y
which is-a-dog.


So, in 5.5 "de poi ger= ku" equates to "some single thing which is a dog" but in 5.6= it's "some thing which is a dog".=A0 Why?=A0 When you quanti= fy a variable does that automatically make all following variables in terms= of it?


- Luke Bergen


On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 5:55 PM, Robin L= ee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 18, 2009 at 05:35:23PM -0400, Luke Bergen wro= te:
> so I just read through section 5 of chapter16 of the refgram and
> am confused by this line: =A0"since it is the order in which the<= br> > variables appear that matters we can say ...".
>
> basically in "de poi gerku cu batci ro da poi prenu" =A0&quo= t;de poi
> gerku" is translated as "there-is-a-Y which is a dog" = =A0but in "ro
> da poi prenu cu se batci de poi gerku" the same string is
> translated as "_some_ Y which is a dog".

Those mean exactly the some thing, AFAICT. =A0What makes you think they are different?

The order matters because we stole this construct from predicate
logic; understanding that is really required to understand these
sentences. =A0The issue is binding of numbers on the variables. =A0In
the first sentence, there is 1 de, some dog. =A0It bites every human;
many da. =A0That is, the single de scopes over the many da. =A0"There = is
a (single) dog which bit every human".

In the second sentence, there are many da, but they scope over the
single de, which means that there is a single de *for each of the
many humans*. =A0"Every human is bitten by a dog (but they need not all be the same dog)".

*Technically*, da/de with no number is "su'o da", so the
hyper-explicit versions are:

"There exists at least one particular dog(s) which, by themself/ves, bit every human."

"For every human, there exists at least one particular dog(s) which bit him/her."

The issue is order of quantification, not order of variables as
such. =A0You can make the first sentence into the second by doing:

ro da de zo'u de poi gerku cu batci ro da poi prenu

This puts the specification of quantifier scoping out front, to make
it more explicit that we've got predicate logic scoping and weird
shit may occur.

-Robin

--
They say: =A0"The first AIs will be built by the military as weapons.&= quot;
And I'm thinking: =A0"Does it even occur to you to try for somethi= ng
other than the default outcome?" -- http://shorl.com/tydruhedufogre
ht= tp://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/




--001485f9213ec10c770467db7b00--