[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] The bigness of a set



On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote:

> At 08:51 PM 11/30/01 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote:
> >Sets have certain properties, like cardinality, membership, and inclusion.
> >Physical size is not one of them. Therefore how do we deal with a
> >statement like the canonical "lo'i ratcu cu barda"? It appears that, in
> >context, a reference to a set is being replaced by a reference to the
> >cardinality of the set.
>
> I think this is true for all instances of "large"/"barda" - we are saying
> that some unspecified dimension(s) of the referent are more than an in mind
> standard. In the case of sets, we happen to know what the dimension is
> most likely to be.



Is my final sentence correct?




-- 
The tao that can be tar(1)ed
is not the entire Tao.
The path that can be specified
is not the Full Path.