Received: from mail-ie0-f189.google.com ([209.85.223.189]:49334)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban-beginners+bncCMLaiI6rCBCX0KaCBRoEDg9tLQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1T9tOB-00022a-2i; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:54:15 -0700
Received: by ieak10 with SMTP id k10sf1420481iea.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=x-beenthere:mime-version:date:in-reply-to:references:user-agent
         :x-http-useragent: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
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=KjTnbQY7dagzAYFQh693UTN65gpiTQXU+TWygMumjMI=;
        b=Fx+1Oj4PYg7EXpS7tImEUDukqtg9o+qH6w5zwv7BKcg7JAKR6eHEnVu6slgLpZXQhA
         NXkTkhtAjSsxFstTgIMFSXAbxWI6J1Sak747hEJxgtHoZt3eZi6uXna87FfZRsD+C9HN
         jY4+zr+XnGkrZN7g4umQduqp+Uh9WAohzK5KSDqLsgKhiXqs6mV3Eh3VOWw8pNtGvE2p
         DtBlbmeVNHcaMjdsUp14bSM5DxIocuPS7ScVPgaR/KXcVJ7oCsV/Vy++2sCZ1/c0zgxZ
         s0rZ0xrQeYCOw1VPfmKwksKPvYo7KO8joACfaDbCyr31jGntYaz1jj86J5FOVQhSZmoE
         ehKQ==
Received: by 10.52.65.74 with SMTP id v10mr826519vds.18.1347004439970;
        Fri, 07 Sep 2012 00:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.52.28.170 with SMTP id c10ls240628vdh.0.gmail; Fri, 07 Sep
 2012 00:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.37.74 with SMTP id w10mr837447vdj.8.1347004439278; Fri, 07
 Sep 2012 00:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by e9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 00:53:59
 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 00:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDVTfjDpwdiKtVvO7sCku11UE5XyT4cJJYqZfZE+inJM1w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <369b1b83-0407-4ccf-aa59-89a5ffbaf473@googlegroups.com>
 <CAOQ8VDUCkSVyFRG_4td_EAhiZ3XUO9bbr4-MNprN0oCwptsqRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPAJj9K4NDjNQZnkiF2UXaAtHjsnswwsgpCm+Cm9Ata-pLN25w@mail.gmail.com>
 <02c05dfc-7cc4-4ec6-a331-d915e2e9cdbf@s5g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>
 <CAO7tK2eUJHA-35pXtbHnhusyG0ef1T6D_SrPf94RhALoYWUM3Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <07b7573a-45c9-44be-9d03-a74aa2b1127d@q20g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>
 <CAO7tK2d6W2jgPmx9BZ9EZpsT2hWijsE12tgoSN358HgujHgLaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6bbe2f0e-9e7e-47e5-bbe1-0896c881dae9@p5g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>
 <CAOQ8VDV3C=5U=adHisMO7eVPCO=ndPFk3M4Pv7kppD=AyddTCg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAO7tK2dvHq_1+PZ1GMjqHqBUSkazagE_MEr9Pc+1jU-YPjCdOA@mail.gmail.com> <CAOQ8VDVTfjDpwdiKtVvO7sCku11UE5XyT4cJJYqZfZE+inJM1w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686) AppleWebKit/537.1 (KHTML, like
 Gecko) Chrome/21.0.1180.89 Safari/537.1,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID: <9fbab34e-f163-4cd6-9b01-87edbbcfb4d0@e9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Where should I use sets and where should I use masses?
From: ianek <janek37@gmail.com>
To: Lojban Beginners <lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com>
X-Original-Sender: janek37@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain
 of janek37@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=janek37@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban-beginners.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban-beginners+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:lojban-beginners+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:googlegroups-manage+300742228892+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /
Content-Length: 4868



On 7 Wrz, 02:42, Jacob Errington <nicty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 September 2012 19:57, Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Jacob Errington <nicty...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > latro'a and I have a strict(er) view of Lojban in that regard and bel=
ieve
> > > than simxu1 must be a set, and that the simxu action is fully pairwis=
e.
>
> > But in what sense does that definition make Lojban more strict? Are
> > you saying that a predicate with the more vague meaning is simply not
> > a possible predicate in your strict version of Lojban?
>
> Perhaps more "rigid" rather than "strict", but in general, it means less
> intuitive interpretation. To a beginner, {lo verba cu simlu lo ka kelci} =
is
> probably intuitively correct. Indeed, it is understandable, but it doesn'=
t
> have that rigid correctness that I adhere to. Similarly, this overall
> rigidness involves dislike for {kakne lo nu broda} (should be {ka}) and
> {zmadu fi lo ka broda} (should be {ni}). Although I have little evidence
> that actually supports this, this interpretation probably makes things
> simpler to formally define in lojban.
>
> In my honest opinion, {lo verba cu simxu lo ka ce'u kelci kansa ce'u} is
> just nonsense, because it simply isn't distributive. I strongly dislike
> that {lo} can produce non-individuals and therefore use loi and lo'i
> accordingly (please don't supply the gi'e example; a "better" solution to
> that problem in my opinion is either a jai-like LAhE-cast or, if we aren'=
t
> allowed to make up any new cmavo, to just use {ije} (and if the problem
> occurs inside an abstraction, it isn't my fault that there isn't an true
> afterthought bridi connective in the form of {vauJA} or some such)). Each
> individual of the description distributes into the predicate, but it *is
> not* true that each of the children {simxu lo ka kelci kansa}. In fact, i=
f
> it's okay to just use definitely separate individuals like that, ignoring
> distribution completely, then {.i mi .e do simxu lo ka cenba} makes perfe=
ct
> sense, which again in my opinion, it most certainly should not, as {mi
> simxu lo ka cinba .ije do simxu lo ka cinba} is complete nonsense.
>
>
>
> > > {mi
> > > ce do simxu lo ka cinba} therefore has the obvious meaning. Likewise,
> > {lo'i
> > > nanmu ce lo'i ninmu cu simxu lo ka cinba} (I'm using ce as a cheap se=
t
> > > addition because I can't be bothered to really look up how to do it)
>
> > Set union is "jo'e" (but maybe that's not what you want either). "ce"
> > would create a set whose two members are each a set.
>
> Right. I do know what the real effect of {ce} is in that situation, which
> is why I specified the laziness. It also happens to be why I have an issu=
e
> with {ce}-strings.
>
>
>
> > >doesn't
> > > mean that all the men kissed all the women and vice-versa; it means t=
hat
> > > each of the men kissed each of the women and also *was kissed* by eac=
h of
> > > them. That would be my intended interpretation of that, for instance.
>
> > And also each men kissed and was kissed by each of the other men,
> > right? Otherwise you don't want the union there but something more
> > complicated. If you don't include the same sex kissing pairs, that
> > wouldn't match ianek's interpretation.
>
> Uh, yes, of course. Too tired at this point I guess. Naturally it include=
s
> the same-sex kissing as well. That's exactly what I meant to say.

If we'd want to exclude it, we could use the never ever used Cartesian
product {pi'u}. I don't know what is the type of a pair, but assuming
it's just a set (as hinted in CLL 14.15 http://dag.github.com/cll/14/15/
which makes it not-exactly-Cartesian product) and, again after CLL
14.15, assuming that the Cartesian product isn't itself a set, but a
plural reference to pairs (not sure whether distributive or
otherwise), we can just say:

lo'i nanmu pi'u lo'i ninmu cu simxu lo ka cinba

and it means that each pair kisses mutually (at least under the
fficial definition of {simxu}).

mu'o mi'e ianek

> .i mi'e la tsani mu'o
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Grou=
ps
> > "Lojban Beginners" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=3Den.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@=
googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
-beginners?hl=3Den.