Re: Use and abuse of sets

["Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 11:35 AM 02/28/2000 -0800, Jorge Llambias wrote:
>la adam cusku di'e
> >What *is* the word for a mathematical set? The closest I can come
> >up with is "selcmi", but that doesn't require complete specification
> >of the set (and you've also already rejected that zo'o).
>
>I guess {cmacykle} or something else with {klesi}.

I believe that we argued once that the x2 of -mei was a complete 
specification of a mathematical set, though x3 does not have to be a 
complete list of members. So seromei/sepiromei might also do the trick.

> >OTOH, if you want to say that every member of a
> >group performs some action on every other member, using a set is
> >the most clear.
>
>Yes, but does this situation ever come up? Or at least as
>often as to require a whole set of cmavo to describe it?

Conceptually and logically, yes. Whether common everyday usage will be 
"enough", there are a lot of cmavo that are even less likely to be used 
(mathematical transpose?), and we are talking only 3 cmavo plus maybe some 
of the JOI (which have seen use, especially ce'o).

> >Officially, only "le'i" is allowed, but I think that using
> >"lei" opens up interesting and useful distinctions such as this one.
>
>I don't think that the gismu list suggesting a set
>for a given place means that *only* sets are allowed
>officially. I usually use masses where the gismu list
>suggests sets. {mi'o} is {mi joi do}, so if only sets were
>allowed with {simxu} you couldn't say something like
>{mi'o daxysi'u}, you'd have to say {mi ce do daxysi'u}.
>
>Loglanists use the word "set" to describe what we
>call "mass".

JCB at the last resolved his intent for the word "set" and lost his chief 
logician over his decision, so obviously there was less than unanimity 
there. I believe I looked at what he said and found that he had gone back 
to what we now convey as "ro lo" (their lea), but I may be recalling 
incorrectly. Prior to that they had no equivalent to "lo" (their "lo" is 
our "loi", except when it is our "lei")

We split out the triple descriptors based on differences in usage within 
Loglan, so there somewhere was discussion supporting each of the 
interpretations of "set". JCB at last decided to stop contradicting 
himself, and chose the most useful given that TLI did not have the triple 
descriptors.

> (And they use "mass" for something else.)
>They had some discussion about whether their sets were
>mathematical sets, or whether they were just collective
>references like our masses, and they (sensibly) decided
>that they are the latter. So they don't have any special
>cmavo for mathematical sets. Hopefully Lojban will
>eventually lose those cmavo, if I can convince people
>not to use them...

TLI Loglan has no cmavo for most of the needed MEX structures. We 
considered it part of fulfilling the JCB commitment to have a MEX solution, 
so we need set description on that basis alone, even if it is not 
particularly necessary for everyday use.

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 (newly updated!)