Lojban sets (was: RE: Collective: definition

["And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>]

Lojbab:
> At 09:46 PM 12/23/02 +1100, Nick Nicholas wrote:
> >This means collectives, as indivisible n-tuples, are ontologically
> >distinct from masses, and deserve their own *something* 
> 
> This implies that we indeed never abandoned the idea that le'i/lo'i are 
> true sets and not n-tuples (something that has been argued so many times 
> that I'm never sure who won any more). I believe that TLI went to the 
> n-tuple version of set description 

I don't remember the n-tuples view ever having had any advocacy in my
time. Sure, some of us who thought loi/lei did collectives have thought
that lo'i/le'i weren't useful, but obviously would have thought them
useful if it was they and not loi/lei that did collectives. But I'd
be astonished if a collectives view of lo'i/le'i turned out to be
compatible with CLL. 

--And.