Re: [jboske] Transfinites

[Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 10:05 AM 1/13/03 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Robert LeChevalier scripsit:
>
> > This again is incompatible with tu'o meaning mo'ezi'o, which requires that
> > there be NO number.
>
> Not what zi'o means, but a common error that I strive to eradicate.
>
> A zi'o sumti does not mean that no value *can* be expressed, but that
> the relationship is being constrained ("projected" in relational algebra)
> to suppress it. Thus "klama fo zi'o" does not necessarily involve 
> teleportation
> (where there is no route), but it doesn't exclude it either. So both
> teleportation and non-teleportation events are included in klama fo zi'o,
> but only non-teleportation is involved in klama without fo zi'o.

So are zo'e and zi'o mutually exclusive or are they not. Your defining 
example of zi'o in CLL and explanation make them look mutually exclusive; 
your recent example involving "translated" make them look muturally 
exclusive. This explanation and prior ones I've had from you make zi'o a 
subset of zo'e (or is it vice versa) because all instances of one can be 
represented by the other.

They cannot both be exclusive and also one be inclusive of the other, and 
until it gets settled, I don't understand what anyone means when they use it.

lojbab

--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org