[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u
In a message dated 9/22/2001 1:17:56 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
> y = f(x)
> y = 2x+3
> y = x
>
> Now, you want to call the first two functions "f(x)" and "2x+3"
> respectively, but you object when I point out that your system
>
I'm not sure what you mean. You give three equations, two of them between a
function and its value and the third between two individuals. Then you say
that because the second term in the first two equations is a function, the
third one must be too. I don't see how that follows. Alternatively, you
mean these equations to be functions of some sort, presumably to
propositions, since they are sentential, but then this is a very different
case from the one we were discussing, which was a function to individuals --
and further, you have then misidentified the function throughout. The
function, sid(x), which returns as value for each argument that argument
itself, is a function, but is neither the argument nor the value, as you seem
to want it to be. (It is, usually, as set of ordered pairs in which the
first and second members are the same.)
<>Using {le du be ce'u} is pointless with {frica} since any two things that
>differ in any way at all differ in this (and {le ka makau du ce'u}).
What if that were the only relevant difference? Why is it pointless
to say so? And if it is always pointless, what's the point of having
the special gismu {drata} for this or a very similar purpose? (In any
case, this has nothing to do with what we are arguing about.)>
Could happen I suppose (I think of atoms, for example). It would be unusual
and certainly doesn't apply to the cases we have been dealing with, but that
has led me off before. I am not at all sure why we have {drata}; it does seem
to be covered pretty well by {frica} and the various negations of {du}. And,
yes, this is pretty much beside the point, except for the strange things it
seems to lead you to say.
<I'm afraid I don't see your point. If you don't know that they are
different, you probably won't be claiming that they are. If you
don't know that they are different, and someone else claims that
they differ in who they are, and you believe them, then you have
gained some knowledge, which may not be pointless.>
But, as you should be the first to point out, differing in who they are {leka
makau du c'eu} is not the same as differing in their identitites {le du be
ce'u}. If I don't know that the Evening Star and the Morning Star are the
same, telling me that the Evening Star
is the Evening Star and the Morning Star is the Morning Star won't help much.
<>ti ta frica le ka le mamta be ce'u cu klama makau
>This one and that one differ in where their mothers go.
>
>But obviously functions don't go anywhere. I want ce'u to
>always be an argument of ka.>
>
>Sorry, even without me this won't fly the way you want: {ce'u} is minimal
>scope, so doesn't go beyond {le mamta be...} anyhow.
That's what you say! But until you proposed treating
{le mamta be ce'u} as a function, {ce'u} was only used as
an argument of a full bridi. Minimal scope in that sense means
nearest prenex.>
{ce'u} is a lambda variable, so it follows those rules, i.e., has minimal
scope, which in this case starts at the end of the {le} and ends at the end
of the {ce'u} under standard Lojban transformations from logical notation.
That is how it works in {le ka makau mamta be ce'u} too.
<>For this you need {le
>ka ce'u goi cy zo'u
>le mamta be cy ...}. So my interpretation of {le mamta be ce'u} isn't your
>problem. (See And's discussion of the scope of {ce'u} a few days ago)
I don't think And said anything about this case, he was talking
of a prenex within the scope of another prenex. Here you don't have
a prenex.>
He was actually talking about the relative scopes of {makau} and {ce'u} but
the point he made is perfectly general. We actually do have preneces on
terms, though we rarely use them because they rarely matter. Here they do,
so we use 'em.
<Your interpretation is also inconsistent in that the very minimal
scope should always take {ce'u} itself as the identity function.
What I think And meant by minimal scope is that it is within the
scope of the closest prenex.>
Sorry, taking {ce'u} as a function is your problem, not mine, so I don't have
that inconsistency here (I would say rather "incoherence" for your position).
As for And, I think what you say is right -- properly understood, but And's
way of putting it leaves some room for doubt.
<><Would you accept {le se klama be le mamta be ce'u}?
>Is that a function into destinations, or is it the
>destination of a function, assuming functions can go
>places?>
>
>Accept as what? It appears to be a destination of a function, but I need
>to
>see some context as to what I would make of it, since it might behave
>differently as a sumti to a different selbri -- or with a different prenex.
The context would be: {ti ta frica le se klama be le mamta be ce'u}.
But that wouldn't work with your rules of minimal scope.
In other words, f(g(x)) for you is not a function of x, rather
it is the value that f(x) takes when the function "g(x)" is its
argument.>
Yes, by my rules, your contexted use would be nonsense: "this differs from
that in the destination of the mother function." Unless, of course, this and
that are somehome connected to the mother function or its destination. The
rest is other words indeed, words that no longer mean anything like what I've
said -- nor you for that matter. Depending on the rules of compounding in
your function, f(g(x)) may or may not be a function of x. But, in any case,
f(^xg(x)) is clearly not a function of x, since x is bound in the whole andf
is a function which takes functions as arguments, not objects, so the values
of the ordinary function g don't enter at all (unless ^xg(x) is the value
of some other function which goes from individuals to functions, but that is
not part of the situation a presented). And {le mamta be ce'u} is of the
form ^xg(x) (reading ^ as lambda).
<><My point is that just as some places require propositions
>and don't admit a concretum, other places ask for a function
>into propositions, not for a function to individuals.>
>I agree: {djuno} is clearly an example. Now, is it clear that {frica} and
>{dunli} are?
To me, yes.
la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta ce'u
NOT OK maybe not false but nonsensical: it yields things like
{la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta la dubias} and {la barbras fa'u la xilris
mamta la tclsis}, where the {fa'u} in one case is superfluous and in the
other gets the wrong person, so I suppose the required XOR comes out right.
A less likely way of reading it, which works a litle better would allow that
the {fa'u} somehow got outside the bridi it is in to the superordinate one,
then you would get the right mothers in each case, but then they would not
differ in this property at all but rather would agree (though every thing
else would be wrong for one reason or another).
la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u makau mamta ce'u
OK
la dubias la tclsis frica la barbras fa'u la xilris
NOT OK
Who holds this one? Certainly not me, since I insist that te frica has to be
abstract.
la dubias la tclsis frica le mamta be ce'u
OK I take the presence of a {ce'u} to be enough to create an abstraction.
By me:
la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta ce'u
OK
la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u makau mamta ce'u
OK
la dubias la tclsis frica la barbras fa'u la xilris
NOT OK
la dubias la tclsis frica le mamta be ce'u
NOT OK
--part1_77.1b794eda.28de5fb4_alt_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=2>In a message dated 9/22/2001 1:17:56 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">y = f(x)
<BR>y = 2x+3
<BR>y = x
<BR>
<BR>Now, you want to call the first two functions "f(x)" and "2x+3"
<BR>respectively, but you object when I point out that your system
<BR>allows to call the third one "x".</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>I'm not sure what you mean. You give three equations, two of thembetween a function and its value and the third between two individuals. Then you say that because the second term in the first two equations is a function, the third one must be too. I don't see how that follows. Alternatively, you mean these equations to be functions of some sort, presumably to propositions, since they are sentential, but then this is a very different case from the one we were discussing, which was a function to individuals -- and further, you have then misidentified the function throughout. The function, sid(x), which returns as value for each argument that argument itself, is a function, but is neither the argument nor the value, as you seem to want it to be. (It is, usually, as set of ordered pairs in which the first and second members are the same.)
<BR>
<BR><>Using {le du be ce'u} is pointless with {frica} since any two things that
<BR>>differ in any way at all differ in this (and {le ka makau du ce'u}).
<BR>
<BR>What if that were the only relevant difference? Why is it pointless
<BR>to say so? And if it is always pointless, what's the point of having
<BR>the special gismu {drata} for this or a very similar purpose? (In any
<BR>case, this has nothing to do with what we are arguing about.)>
<BR>
<BR>Could happen I suppose (I think of atoms, for example). It would be unusual and certainly doesn't apply to the cases we have been dealing with, but that has led me off before. I am not at all sure why we have {drata}; it does seem to be covered pretty well by {frica} and the various negations of {du}. And, yes, this is pretty much beside the point, except for the strange things it seems to lead you to say.
<BR>
<BR><I'm afraid I don't see your point. If you don't know that they are
<BR>different, you probably won't be claiming that they are. If you
<BR>don't know that they are different, and someone else claims that
<BR>they differ in who they are, and you believe them, then you have
<BR>gained some knowledge, which may not be pointless.>
<BR>
<BR>But, as you should be the first to point out, differing in who they are{leka makau du c'eu} is not the same as differing in their identitites {ledu be ce'u}. If I don't know that the Evening Star and the Morning Star are the same, telling me that the Evening Star
<BR>is the Evening Star and the Morning Star is the Morning Star won't helpmuch.
<BR>
<BR><>ti ta frica le ka le mamta be ce'u cu klama makau
<BR>>This one and that one differ in where their mothers go.
<BR>>
<BR>>But obviously functions don't go anywhere. I want ce'u to
<BR>>always be an argument of ka.>
<BR>>
<BR>>Sorry, even without me this won't fly the way you want: {ce'u} is minimal
<BR>>scope, so doesn't go beyond {le mamta be...} anyhow.
<BR>
<BR>That's what you say! But until you proposed treating
<BR>{le mamta be ce'u} as a function, {ce'u} was only used as
<BR>an argument of a full bridi. Minimal scope in that sense means
<BR>nearest prenex.>
<BR>
<BR>{ce'u} is a lambda variable, so it follows those rules, i.e., has minimal scope, which in this case starts at the end of the {le} and ends at the end of the {ce'u} under standard Lojban transformations from logical notation. That is how it works in {le ka makau mamta be ce'u} too.
<BR>
<BR><>For this you need {le
<BR>>ka ce'u goi cy zo'u
<BR>>le mamta be cy ...}. So my interpretation of {le mamta be ce'u} isn't your
<BR>>problem. (See And's discussion of the scope of {ce'u} a few days ago)
<BR>
<BR>I don't think And said anything about this case, he was talking
<BR>of a prenex within the scope of another prenex. Here you don't have
<BR>a prenex.>
<BR>He was actually talking about the relative scopes of {makau} and {ce'u}but the point he made is perfectly general. We actually do have preneces on terms, though we rarely use them because they rarely matter. Here they do, so we use 'em.
<BR>
<BR><Your interpretation is also inconsistent in that the very minimal
<BR>scope should always take {ce'u} itself as the identity function.
<BR>What I think And meant by minimal scope is that it is within the
<BR>scope of the closest prenex.>
<BR>
<BR>Sorry, taking {ce'u} as a function is your problem, not mine, so I don't have that inconsistency here (I would say rather "incoherence" for your position). As for And, I think what you say is right -- properly understood, but And's way of putting it leaves some room for doubt.
<BR>
<BR><><Would you accept {le se klama be le mamta be ce'u}?
<BR>>Is that a function into destinations, or is it the
<BR>>destination of a function, assuming functions can go
<BR>>places?>
<BR>>
<BR>>Accept as what? It appears to be a destination of a function, but I need
<BR>>to
<BR>>see some context as to what I would make of it, since it might behave
<BR>>differently as a sumti to a different selbri -- or with a differentprenex.
<BR>
<BR>The context would be: {ti ta frica le se klama be le mamta be ce'u}.
<BR>But that wouldn't work with your rules of minimal scope.
<BR>
<BR>In other words, f(g(x)) for you is not a function of x, rather
<BR>it is the value that f(x) takes when the function "g(x)" is its
<BR>argument.>
<BR>
<BR>Yes, by my rules, your contexted use would be nonsense: "this differs from that in the destination of the mother function." Unless, of course, this and that are somehome connected to the mother function or its destination. The rest is other words indeed, words that no longer mean anything like what I've said -- nor you for that matter. Depending on the rules of compounding in your function, f(g(x)) may or may not be a function of x. But, in any case, f(^xg(x)) is clearly not a function of x, since x is bound in the whole and f is a function which takes functions as arguments, not objects, so the values of the ordinary function g don't enter at all (unless ^xg(x) is the value of some other function which goes from individuals to functions, but that is not part of the situation a presented). And {le mamta be ce'u} is of the form ^xg(x) (reading^ as lambda).
<BR>
<BR><><My point is that just as some places require propositions
<BR>>and don't admit a concretum, other places ask for a function
<BR>>into propositions, not for a function to individuals.>
<BR>>I agree: {djuno} is clearly an example. Now, is it clear that {frica} and
<BR>>{dunli} are?
<BR>
<BR>To me, yes.
<BR>
<BR>la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta ce'u
<BR>
<BR>NOT OK maybe not false but nonsensical: it yields things like
<BR>{la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta la dubias} and {la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta la tclsis}, where the {fa'u} in one case is superfluous and in the other gets the wrong person, so I suppose the required XOR comes out right. A less likely way of reading it, which works a litle better would allow that the {fa'u} somehow got outside the bridi it is in to the superordinate one, then you would get the right mothers in each case, but then they would not differ in this property at all but rather would agree (though every thing else would be wrong for one reason or another).
<BR>
<BR>la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u makau mamta ce'u
<BR>OK
<BR>
<BR>la dubias la tclsis frica la barbras fa'u la xilris
<BR>NOT OK
<BR>Who holds this one? Certainly not me, since I insist that te frica has to be abstract.
<BR>
<BR>la dubias la tclsis frica le mamta be ce'u
<BR> OK I take the presence of a {ce'u} to be enough to create an abstraction.
<BR>
<BR>By me:
<BR>la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta ce'u
<BR>OK
<BR>
<BR>la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u makau mamta ce'u
<BR>OK
<BR>
<BR>la dubias la tclsis frica la barbras fa'u la xilris
<BR>NOT OK
<BR>
<BR>la dubias la tclsis frica le mamta be ce'u
<BR>NOT OK
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>
--part1_77.1b794eda.28de5fb4_alt_boundary--
--- Begin Message ---
la pycyn cusku di'e
>and, of course, has nothing to do with the
>identity function, your "natural extension" (which is like the Holy Roman
>Empire) notwithstanding (confusing a function with its values).
Whatever it is that I'm confusing here, it is not a function with
its values. Consider these three functions of x:
y = f(x)
y = 2x+3
y = x
Now, you want to call the first two functions "f(x)" and "2x+3"
respectively, but you object when I point out that your system
allows to call the third one "x".
>Using {le du be ce'u} is pointless with {frica} since any two things that
>differ in any way at all differ in this (and {le ka makau du ce'u}).
What if that were the only relevant difference? Why is it pointless
to say so? And if it is always pointless, what's the point of having
the special gismu {drata} for this or a very similar purpose? (In any
case, this has nothing to do with what we are arguing about.)
>Or,
>putting it another way, if you don't know W and Chelsea are different,
>pointing to their self identities won't help, since they do not indicate
>that
>difference by themselves.
I'm afraid I don't see your point. If you don't know that they are
different, you probably won't be claiming that they are. If you
don't know that they are different, and someone else claims that
they differ in who they are, and you believe them, then you have
gained some knowledge, which may not be pointless.
><I want to be able to say things like:
>
>ti ta frica le ka le mamta be ce'u cu klama makau
>This one and that one differ in where their mothers go.
>
>But obviously functions don't go anywhere. I want ce'u to
>always be an argument of ka.>
>
>Sorry, even without me this won't fly the way you want: {ce'u} is minimal
>scope, so doesn't go beyond {le mamta be...} anyhow.
That's what you say! But until you proposed treating
{le mamta be ce'u} as a function, {ce'u} was only used as
an argument of a full bridi. Minimal scope in that sense means
nearest prenex.
>For this you need {le
>ka ce'u goi cy zo'u
>le mamta be cy ...}. So my interpretation of {le mamta be ce'u} isn't your
>problem. (See And's discussion of the scope of {ce'u} a few days ago)
I don't think And said anything about this case, he was talking
of a prenex within the scope of another prenex. Here you don't have
a prenex.
Your interpretation is also inconsistent in that the very minimal
scope should always take {ce'u} itself as the identity function.
What I think And meant by minimal scope is that it is within the
scope of the closest prenex.
><Would you accept {le se klama be le mamta be ce'u}?
>Is that a function into destinations, or is it the
>destination of a function, assuming functions can go
>places?>
>
>Accept as what? It appears to be a destination of a function, but I need
>to
>see some context as to what I would make of it, since it might behave
>differently as a sumti to a different selbri -- or with a different prenex.
The context would be: {ti ta frica le se klama be le mamta be ce'u}.
But that wouldn't work with your rules of minimal scope.
In other words, f(g(x)) for you is not a function of x, rather
it is the value that f(x) takes when the function "g(x)" is its
argument.
><My point is that just as some places require propositions
>and don't admit a concretum, other places ask for a function
>into propositions, not for a function to individuals.>
>I agree: {djuno} is clearly an example. Now, is it clear that {frica} and
>{dunli} are?
To me, yes.
la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u la barbras fa'u la xilris mamta ce'u
OK
la dubias la tclsis frica le du'u makau mamta ce'u
OK
la dubias la tclsis frica la barbras fa'u la xilris
NOT OK
la dubias la tclsis frica le mamta be ce'u
NOT OK
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
--- End Message ---