[lojban-beginners] Re: Where should I use sets and where should I use masses?

[ianek <janek37@gmail.com>]

On 7 Wrz, 02:42, Jacob Errington <nicty...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 September 2012 19:57, Jorge Llambías <jjllamb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 8:02 PM, Jacob Errington <nicty...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > latro'a and I have a strict(er) view of Lojban in that regard and believe
> > > than simxu1 must be a set, and that the simxu action is fully pairwise.
>
> > But in what sense does that definition make Lojban more strict? Are
> > you saying that a predicate with the more vague meaning is simply not
> > a possible predicate in your strict version of Lojban?
>
> Perhaps more "rigid" rather than "strict", but in general, it means less
> intuitive interpretation. To a beginner, {lo verba cu simlu lo ka kelci} is
> probably intuitively correct. Indeed, it is understandable, but it doesn't
> have that rigid correctness that I adhere to. Similarly, this overall
> rigidness involves dislike for {kakne lo nu broda} (should be {ka}) and
> {zmadu fi lo ka broda} (should be {ni}). Although I have little evidence
> that actually supports this, this interpretation probably makes things
> simpler to formally define in lojban.
>
> In my honest opinion, {lo verba cu simxu lo ka ce'u kelci kansa ce'u} is
> just nonsense, because it simply isn't distributive. I strongly dislike
> that {lo} can produce non-individuals and therefore use loi and lo'i
> accordingly (please don't supply the gi'e example; a "better" solution to
> that problem in my opinion is either a jai-like LAhE-cast or, if we aren't
> allowed to make up any new cmavo, to just use {ije} (and if the problem
> occurs inside an abstraction, it isn't my fault that there isn't an true
> afterthought bridi connective in the form of {vauJA} or some such)). Each
> individual of the description distributes into the predicate, but it *is
> not* true that each of the children {simxu lo ka kelci kansa}. In fact, if
> it's okay to just use definitely separate individuals like that, ignoring
> distribution completely, then {.i mi .e do simxu lo ka cenba} makes perfect
> sense, which again in my opinion, it most certainly should not, as {mi
> simxu lo ka cinba .ije do simxu lo ka cinba} is complete nonsense.
>
>
>
> > > {mi
> > > ce do simxu lo ka cinba} therefore has the obvious meaning. Likewise,
> > {lo'i
> > > nanmu ce lo'i ninmu cu simxu lo ka cinba} (I'm using ce as a cheap set
> > > addition because I can't be bothered to really look up how to do it)
>
> > Set union is "jo'e" (but maybe that's not what you want either). "ce"
> > would create a set whose two members are each a set.
>
> Right. I do know what the real effect of {ce} is in that situation, which
> is why I specified the laziness. It also happens to be why I have an issue
> with {ce}-strings.
>
>
>
> > >doesn't
> > > mean that all the men kissed all the women and vice-versa; it means that
> > > each of the men kissed each of the women and also *was kissed* by each of
> > > them. That would be my intended interpretation of that, for instance.
>
> > And also each men kissed and was kissed by each of the other men,
> > right? Otherwise you don't want the union there but something more
> > complicated. If you don't include the same sex kissing pairs, that
> > wouldn't match ianek's interpretation.
>
> Uh, yes, of course. Too tired at this point I guess. Naturally it includes
> the same-sex kissing as well. That's exactly what I meant to say.

If we'd want to exclude it, we could use the never ever used Cartesian
product {pi'u}. I don't know what is the type of a pair, but assuming
it's just a set (as hinted in CLL 14.15 http://dag.github.com/cll/14/15/
which makes it not-exactly-Cartesian product) and, again after CLL
14.15, assuming that the Cartesian product isn't itself a set, but a
plural reference to pairs (not sure whether distributive or
otherwise), we can just say:

lo'i nanmu pi'u lo'i ninmu cu simxu lo ka cinba

and it means that each pair kisses mutually (at least under the
fficial definition of {simxu}).

mu'o mi'e ianek

> .i mi'e la tsani mu'o
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Lojban Beginners" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Lojban Beginners" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban-beginners@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban-beginners+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-beginners?hl=en.