Received: from mail-wg0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]:49500) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UfesM-0004EQ-4G; Thu, 23 May 2013 16:25:04 -0700 Received: by mail-wg0-f61.google.com with SMTP id z11sf463047wgg.6 for ; Thu, 23 May 2013 16:24:42 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to: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=wTSBMu93FgWNJBAqV48W8CnUroqAJ8UbMCzOSrg7ReY=; b=GeMtXQGJ/dFlbxGgr6apgN8cJ7oUOzssY+DdRwBY0yv3Oil1cql6iRjLImF1mdCxdP xR7Z4Nc+Et8+iRYhtZGDefAsEq/sbJp41WGLw26T7iCBhYWzvjqRFkL3QkuxJmrKaGZj YT/XdHA44d64QkCEQSUdO3RlF3GSYY5oLtJQTZC4rEu8okaUqe4qQff6ERJU2RVyYYF2 4DMXRIUwcgVaZVoIRJY3AM6851aZAE7JCnKIE9VN1E7LEzVFeIZokPiU0isOQ7Eya8JO oMXiqLP9GxJ4yawhAIV1Rixbi5q8E2Ba5E3KQTpnVmnoaBqc3s3jVodHSgXF7/+Tc6ej QsoQ== X-Received: by 10.180.189.106 with SMTP id gh10mr1402973wic.10.1369351482210; Thu, 23 May 2013 16:24:42 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.88.229 with SMTP id bj5ls99840wib.53.gmail; Thu, 23 May 2013 16:24:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.15.24.202 with SMTP id j50mr15337111eeu.1.1369351481107; Thu, 23 May 2013 16:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dd17822.kasserver.com (dd17822.kasserver.com. [85.13.138.119]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o5si3513325eew.0.2013.05.23.16.24.41 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 May 2013 16:24:41 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.13.138.119 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of me@v4hn.de) client-ip=85.13.138.119; Received: from samsa (brln-4db8003f.pool.mediaWays.net [77.184.0.63]) by dd17822.kasserver.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 0B40386025A for ; Fri, 24 May 2013 01:24:39 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 01:24:39 +0200 From: v4hn To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: questions about lojban Message-ID: <20130523232439.GL3114@samsa.fritz.box> References: <20130523213308.GK3114@samsa.fritz.box> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="UUMz/kfoogzZ9WLZ" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Original-Sender: me@v4hn.de X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.13.138.119 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of me@v4hn.de) smtp.mail=me@v4hn.de Reply-To: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com; contact lojban-beginners+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 300742228892 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 1 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.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: On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:38:42PM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:33 PM, v4hn wrote: > > It is neither and you're "argument", that is to say you're opinion, > > isn't any stronger. > > *your [...] Content analysis details: (0.1 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid Content-Length: 1832 --UUMz/kfoogzZ9WLZ Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 04:38:42PM -0600, Jonathan Jones wrote: > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:33 PM, v4hn wrote: > > It is neither and you're "argument", that is to say you're opinion, > > isn't any stronger. >=20 > *your =2Eua .e'enai je'e .i mi mutce tatpi ca le cabdei vau za'a > And it's not an opinion. It's an analogy, So is the object analogy. > as predicate logic and functional > programming are very similar in this regard: they both are composed of > functions which take a number of arguments. Good thing lojban is not predicate logic then, right? Ever tried to say "coi" in first order logic? The perspective you describe is just that: a perspective. I like it, but still you shouldn't walk around telling people with different perspectives they got it all wrong. Looking at "p(a)" people see vastly different things: - A function/functor application mapping an element a to a truth value - A property of an object a which might be part of a large taxonomy of objects that might have that property - A node in some semantic ontology - A plain and simple statement - ... Not to speak of different philosophical perspectives on propositions. None of these are wrong. Maybe some are "better" for you, but that might be due to your use cases. > > Did I mention that these comparisons pe'i > > are all invalid and irrational? =2Ei mi ckakla .i a'o do se xamgu mi'e la .van. mu'o --UUMz/kfoogzZ9WLZ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlGepTcACgkQMBKLZs4+wjx61wCZAeLnTmajd7VBDFvW82JX0e+N /esAn36u0eDGMFT3adjVhuqBj56reT/1 =6Nt9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --UUMz/kfoogzZ9WLZ--