Received: from localhost ([::1]:47237 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SncU2-0008UD-UY; Sat, 07 Jul 2012 14:24:07 -0700 Received: from 173-13-139-235-sfba.hfc.comcastbusiness.net ([173.13.139.235]:50456 helo=digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SncTz-0008U7-CH for wikineurotic@lojban.org; Sat, 07 Jul 2012 14:24:05 -0700 Received: by digitalkingdom.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sat, 7 Jul 2012 14:24:00 -0700 From: "Apache" Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2012 14:24:00 -0700 To: wikineurotic@lojban.org X-PHP-Originating-Script: 48:htmlMimeMail.php MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Spam_score: 2.0 X-Spam_score_int: 20 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: The page Discussion: Type System was changed by selpa'i at 21:23 UTC You can view the page by following this link: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Discussion%3A%20Type%20System [...] Content analysis details: (2.0 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 1.6 RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT RBL: RCVD_IN_BRBL_LASTEXT [173.13.139.235 listed in bb.barracudacentral.org] 0.4 RDNS_DYNAMIC Delivered to internal network by host with dynamic-looking rDNS Subject: [Wikineurotic] Wiki page Discussion: Type System changed by selpa'i X-BeenThere: wikineurotic@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: webmaster@lojban.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: wikineurotic-bounces@lojban.org Content-Length: 11561 The page Discussion: Type System was changed by selpa'i at 21:23 UTC You can view the page by following this link: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Discussion%3A%20Type%20System You can view a diff back to the previous version by following this link: http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=Discussion%3A%20Type%20System&compare=1&oldver=6&newver=7 *********************************************************** The changes in this version follow below, followed after by the current full page text. *********************************************************** +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -Lines: 3-8 changed to +Lines: 3-7 @@ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ because karce1's type is "vehicle", as is klama5's. Matching up sumti types is the basis for my jvojva. - With that said, I would like to start a discussion about the implementation of a type system
in Lojban. + With that said, I would like to start a discussion about the implementation of a type system in Lojban. Some points I'd like to discuss are: +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ @@ -Lines: 16-27 changed to +Lines: 15-26 @@ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ !!lo and masses # Personally, I do not see why lo should not be able to create masses. Having an agnostic-about-masses article saves you the trouble of always deciding whether or not you really mean individuals or masses. You can still be explicit if you want to, using loi for explicit masses and lo with outer quantifier for explicit individuals. What are your reasons for wanting to disallow a lo-mass? What do you do with lo and inner quantifiers which are masses as well? Are you saying lo mu bakni is not a mass? --selpa'i - # Yes, I'm saying that {lo mu bakni} is not a mass. It's some individuals, out of the five contextually relevant cows. Sure, having an agnostic article would be nice, but I don't want it to be {lo}. While we're at it, why not let some article produce some super-vague polymorphic description that can be a set, a mass, a description, and event, a property.... I don't want to overload {lo} which a million meanings. Also, the amount of forethought required to properly use the correct type is almost nonexistant. The only thing that this limits is the usefulness of {gi'e} which one can just replace with {ije} and then the correct sumti, if you reject {jai'a}. -- tsani + ## Yes, I'm saying that {lo mu bakni} is not a mass. It's some individuals, out of the five contextually relevant cows. Sure, having an agnostic article would be nice, but I don't want it to be {lo}. While we're at it, why not let some article produce some super-vague polymorphic description that can be a set, a mass, a description, and event, a property.... I don't want to overload {lo} which a million meanings. Also, the amount of forethought required to properly use the correct type is almost nonexistant. The only thing that this limits is the usefulness of {gi'e} which one can just replace with {ije} and then the correct sumti, if you reject {jai'a}. -- tsani !!Type conversions # My main problem with your idea is this: Since every sumti-place has an inherent type, it should not be necessary to explicitly state that the sumti you put in it is of that same type. Take traji3 for example. What's the point of saying {ti traji lo ka cizra kei '''lo'i''' dacti poi mi viska ze'a lo mi nunjmive}? traji3 is a set by default, putting in any sumti makes that sumti a set automatically. (traji: x1 is superlative in x2 (ka) among set/range x3) --selpa'i # I should mention that a sumti place can allow for more than one type, often both a dacti and a fasnu, but sometimes different things too. --selpa'i - # The sumti places that truly are multi-typed are extremely few, in my opinion. The only notable one is nelci2, which allows for any type from class A. The point behind saying {lo'i} rather than, say, {lo} in traji3, even though we all know that traji3 is a set, is for precision. Sure, you can say that there're implicit LAhE or whatever that's necessary to produce a reasonable result, but that's just not what I believe. Your jvojva rely on the fact that types be consistent and static, but it's okay to just put whatever sumti in whatever place and let the selbri do all the work in making sure that types be consistent. That seems illogical to me. My belief is simple: types are static, and the speaker must ensure that the correct-type sumti go in the correct-type places. If the referent yielded by a description is not of the correct type, then it is necessary to use a cast operator, like LAhE. + ## The sumti places that truly are multi-typed are extremely few, in my opinion. The only notable one is nelci2, which allows for any type from class A. The point behind saying {lo'i} rather than, say, {lo} in traji3, even though we all know that traji3 is a set, is for precision. Sure, you can say that there're implicit LAhE or whatever that's necessary to produce a reasonable result, but that's just not what I believe. Your jvojva rely on the fact that types be consistent and static, but it's okay to just put whatever sumti in whatever place and let the selbri do all the work in making sure that types be consistent. That seems illogical to me. My belief is simple: types are static, and the speaker must ensure that the correct-type sumti go in the correct-type places. If the referent yielded by a description is not of the correct type, then it is necessary to use a cast operator, like LAhE. !!Sets # You say that simxu1 is a set. I say it can be a set, but can also be a mass. If you limit simxu1 to a set, you make it rather useless. For example, you cannot say {lo simxu be lo ka ce'u tavla ce'u cu klama lo panka} because sets cannot go. Do you agree? If not, what does a set mean to you in the context of Lojban? --selpa'i - # I disagree because we have LAhE for that, not to mention that you believe that type can be casted automatically by the selbri. Yeah, simxu1's type is inherently "set", but if you stick a set in a mass place, according to you, it becomes as mass, by implicit LAhE. Sets in Lojban are to me pretty much just like sets in math. They have no properties other than those that they all share with one another, like cardinality. Perhaps getting rid of sets altogether is a good idea, replacing them with masses everywhere (I do say {mi'a simxu..}). + ## I disagree because we have LAhE for that, not to mention that you believe that type can be casted automatically by the selbri. Yeah, simxu1's type is inherently "set", but if you stick a set in a mass place, according to you, it becomes as mass, by implicit LAhE. Sets in Lojban are to me pretty much just like sets in math. They have no properties other than those that they all share with one another, like cardinality. Perhaps getting rid of sets altogether is a good idea, replacing them with masses everywhere (I do say {mi'a simxu..}). *********************************************************** The new page content follows below. *********************************************************** I completely agree that Lojban has a type system, and I've treated it that way. In fact, my jvajvo rules rely heavily on sumti types. E.g. the infamous {karcykla} (without pruning) becomes ;:''x1 klama x2 boi x3 boi x4 boi x5 noi karce x6 boi x7'' because karce1's type is "vehicle", as is klama5's. Matching up sumti types is the basis for my jvojva. With that said, I would like to start a discussion about the implementation of a type system in Lojban. Some points I'd like to discuss are: # lo and masses # Type conversions # Sets --selpa'i !!lo and masses # Personally, I do not see why lo should not be able to create masses. Having an agnostic-about-masses article saves you the trouble of always deciding whether or not you really mean individuals or masses. You can still be explicit if you want to, using loi for explicit masses and lo with outer quantifier for explicit individuals. What are your reasons for wanting to disallow a lo-mass? What do you do with lo and inner quantifiers which are masses as well? Are you saying lo mu bakni is not a mass? --selpa'i ## Yes, I'm saying that {lo mu bakni} is not a mass. It's some individuals, out of the five contextually relevant cows. Sure, having an agnostic article would be nice, but I don't want it to be {lo}. While we're at it, why not let some article produce some super-vague polymorphic description that can be a set, a mass, a description, and event, a property.... I don't want to overload {lo} which a million meanings. Also, the amount of forethought required to properly use the correct type is almost nonexistant. The only thing that this limits is the usefulness of {gi'e} which one can just replace with {ije} and then the correct sumti, if you reject {jai'a}. -- tsani !!Type conversions # My main problem with your idea is this: Since every sumti-place has an inherent type, it should not be necessary to explicitly state that the sumti you put in it is of that same type. Take traji3 for example. What's the point of saying {ti traji lo ka cizra kei '''lo'i''' dacti poi mi viska ze'a lo mi nunjmive}? traji3 is a set by default, putting in any sumti makes that sumti a set automatically. (traji: x1 is superlative in x2 (ka) among set/range x3) --selpa'i # I should mention that a sumti place can allow for more than one type, often both a dacti and a fasnu, but sometimes different things too. --selpa'i ## The sumti places that truly are multi-typed are extremely few, in my opinion. The only notable one is nelci2, which allows for any type from class A. The point behind saying {lo'i} rather than, say, {lo} in traji3, even though we all know that traji3 is a set, is for precision. Sure, you can say that there're implicit LAhE or whatever that's necessary to produce a reasonable result, but that's just not what I believe. Your jvojva rely on the fact that types be consistent and static, but it's okay to just put whatever sumti in whatever place and let the selbri do all the work in making sure that types be consistent. That seems illogical to me. My belief is simple: types are static, and the speaker must ensure that the correct-type sumti go in the correct-type places. If the referent yielded by a description is not of the correct type, then it is necessary to use a cast operator, like LAhE. !!Sets # You say that simxu1 is a set. I say it can be a set, but can also be a mass. If you limit simxu1 to a set, you make it rather useless. For example, you cannot say {lo simxu be lo ka ce'u tavla ce'u cu klama lo panka} because sets cannot go. Do you agree? If not, what does a set mean to you in the context of Lojban? --selpa'i ## I disagree because we have LAhE for that, not to mention that you believe that type can be casted automatically by the selbri. Yeah, simxu1's type is inherently "set", but if you stick a set in a mass place, according to you, it becomes as mass, by implicit LAhE. Sets in Lojban are to me pretty much just like sets in math. They have no properties other than those that they all share with one another, like cardinality. Perhaps getting rid of sets altogether is a good idea, replacing them with masses everywhere (I do say {mi'a simxu..}). _______________________________________________ Wikineurotic mailing list Wikineurotic@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/wikineurotic