In a message dated 9/18/2001 7:06:58 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
I'm finding this discussion with you extremely frustrating. Back at you again. It is frustrating trying to make sense of your imaginary constructions around a perfectly straightforward and fairly clearly stated cmavo. I really have tried to make some sense of your claims, but they always turn out to be something you say they are not or something that makes no sense at all. I thought that I finally had a grip on it: that one was the truth value of a claim -- the {jai} might be a typo for {jei}, after all. But that is not the case, apparently. So we are back to the claim that it is the number buried before after the {sela'u} BAI. That looks about right, except that I do not see what your {ni2} is now, since I never see anyone (I can't even find a case where you) use it. The fact that you give partial formulae (and changing them each time), not real examples, hardly helps. But you end with some kind of a property or rather set of properties, having such-and-such as the quantity, presumably giving as the selected case just the {ni1 [bridi]} . Doing it with indirect question, another item in dispute doesn't help much either unless we agree on what thye are and I don't think we do. In any case, the collapse of the one into the other will still go on, as I suggested (unless you mean something really different by your questions) {ni ko'a broda} is a number -- a quantity at least, as the list says "the amount of [bridi] measured on x2" It is not the truth value of anything, as your invention {ni1} seems to And to be, since the amount of the bridi is not the same as its truth value, which might, for example be binary while the amount is continuous (or conversely or anywhere in between). It is not a property or quality or whatever else someone is calling functions from term sets to truth vlaues this week, because it is a quantity, not a quality (a very basic distinction despite all kinds of possible reductions). To take an easy familiar case, the amount that I am tall is 5' 9" in feet/inches, he amount thad Jumbo is big is very in informal scales (and the amount that Tom Thumb is big is not at all in the same scale). And so on. Ahah!? Is the distinction here between {ni ko'a broda} and {ni ce'u broda} the oen that you are driving at with your strange division? But they are the just the function and the applied function, not two different structures (any more than say {le mamta be la dubias} and {le mamta be ce'u} are. The underlying structure (if it is -- I am not sure about {sela'u} being what is wanted) is the same for both, just with {ko'a} interchanged with {ce'u}. The function evaluates to a quantity, not a quality, in each case -- as the rubric requires. (It occurs to me that at some point you said that the answers to questions where what replaced the q-kau, not what replaced the whole question. Is that still functioning in some aprtial way to make the transition from a quantity to the property of being quantized with that quantity?) As the wandering shows, I am trying to understand what the Hell you are talking about and how you get there from such a straightforward notion as "x1 is the amount/quantity of bridi on scale x2" Once more, the epsilon (member) function is defined on Fx1...xn as the extent to which <ref(x1),...,ref(xn)> is in Ref (F). In two valued set theory the possible values are 0 and 1 and usually correspond to the truth values of Fx1...xn. But they need not even in this system and certainly need not in any more complex system of either values of epsilon or truth values. For example, with two truth values, 0 and 1, but three epsilon values, there are a number of possibilities: that only top epsilon value counts a truth value 1, or that all non-bottom ones do, or conversely that only the bottom is false or that all non-tops are. And, of course, the ones not explictly dealt with can simply not be truth functional or be dealt with by default. Please use {ni2} in a complete example (it's ahrd to know what to do with a {ka} unless one knows what the predicate is that it is subordinated to) that is not just a roundabout use of {ni1}. Maybe that will help. I note as an aid that all of the examples given so far an purportedly {ni2} are in fact {ni1}s as far as I can see (as I have pointed out in analyses before). |