On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Robert LeChevalier wrote:
> At 12:47 PM 10/9/02 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> >Here is a summary of my thoughts on ni, yet again, but this time because I
> >was asked:
> >
> >Conceived to provide a quantitative counterpart to the qualitative ka, it
> >is redundant with jei and it's based on a deprecated notion of ka.
> >
> >The deprecated sense of ka to which ni is bound was the miserable result
> >of the conflation between the English "redness" as the property of being
> >red (that's ka ce'u xunre; that which is shared by all red things) and the
> >amount of redness (that's jei ko'a xunre; it is 54% red).
>
> That is not what jei means, though the two are similar in meaning IFF the
> scale of quantity is from 0 to 1.
> jei ko'a xunre du pimuvo
> means that the truth value of "X is red" is .54 on some kind of fuzzy logic
> scale. In other words, it is 54% true that ko'a is red. This may or may
> not mean that it is a color blend which is 54% red and 46% na'e
> xunre. That would constrain fuzzy logic usage too much, IMO.
I'd like a concrete example showing why this is broken.