In a message dated 3/2/2002 6:36:11 PM Central Standard Time, a.rosta@ntlworld.com writes:A sequence can be either a set or a mass; you just add ordering But sequences seem to have properties (beyond order) that neither of these have -- they don't seem to collaborate and yet the individuals seem to still function significantly. <BTW, personally I would prefer to talk of "groups" rather than "masses", when we talk about logcarrying. I find it more intuitive. BTW2, do {lo'i} and {le'i} serve any function that cannot be served by {loi} and {lei}? For example, do {loi} and {lei} have a definite cardinality? If, as the term 'mass' implies, {loi} and {lei} don't a definite cardinality, then I would favour using {le'i} and {lo'i} loglanically to denote groups, that can carry logs and have discrete denumerable members.> Well, I always liked the term "team" for masses. But masses pretty clearly have cardinalities -- they are derived from sets or somethig therelike, which do (I forget if or what the interior quantifer assumed for these things is). But masses or groups or whatever are still very different things from sets -- and things we talk about much more often. (I suppose that a mass of waters would be hard to cardinalize unless you took ups some notion of the size of a water, whichj, at least inm principle, you can do in Lojban.) |