Re: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all}

["Maxim Katcharov" <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>]

That you find certain places where ambiguities still exist when my
proposal is in effect doesn't say a thing about my proposal that I
don't say about it myself. You have to show that it doesn't cover
anything significant. I bring up certain examples where (it seems
that) your methods don't have a capacity to be specific, unless it's
through some verbose and still-context-dependant means. Yes, context
works most of the time. You can usually say with 90% certainty that a
person means X. Occasionally, cases where there is 50~% certainty come
up, but they seem to be bargained up to something "sure" like 90%
through verbose ensuing explanations. But in either case, your method
doesn't have 100% certainty regarding a referent for usual "LE" sumti.
That sort of certainty is achievable, the very simplest one is {pami},
and the most complex is... well, I don't know. I'm sure there's one
that needs 1000+ restrictions, though the odds of actually seeing it
are one in a trillion.

On 5/18/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/18/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > What does a number without a L_ expand to? An inner or an outer, or
> > something different?
>
> Outer. {PA broda} = {PA lo broda}.
>
> Subtle nuances could develop, but we might just as well ignore those
> for now.

What is represented by the inner quantifier? If it isn't equivalent to
my {ro}, then {mu cribe ba zasti}/{mu L_ cribe ba zasti} /isn't/
saying "only 5 bears will exist in the future", it's saying that "only
5 bears of some set will exist in the future". Maybe you mean 5 of
some 20? {pa broda} seems useful for when you want to say something
about some random 1 bear, but not in this case where you want to say
something about 5 of specifically all-conceivable bears.

A blank inner and enough context would, of course, probably be
equivalent to my {ro} with 90% (or some-such, depending on strength of
context) certainty.

> > > > {mu L_ ro cribe cu ba zasti}
> > > > Five bears, out of all hypothetical future bears, will exist in the future.
> > >
> > > Yes, that's "out of all bears, exactly five will exist (at some
> > > unspecified time
> > > in the future)".
> >
> > "[out of] all bears" amounts to my "[out of] the set of all
> > hypothetical/possible permutations of bears". Does this clarify how
> > I'm using this 'hypothetical-all-permutiation set'? Or do you disagree
> > with this?
> >
> > If you disagree, then how are you using "[out of] all bears" in that
> > above sentance?
>
> I was using it in my sense, i.e. "out of all things that count as bears".

What counts as bears? Bears that will actually exist in the future?
Surely not, consider:

{mu L_ ro cribe cu ba zasti}

"five of all-bears-such-that(-will)-exist will exist"? That wouldn't
say anything at all. You need a hypothetical mega-set so that it
becomes comprehensible: "five of all-hypothetical-future-bears will
exist".

> > You don't mean "(out of) the set of all bears that
> > will exist", because that wouldn't work.
>
> No. But notice all the different things it could still mean:
>
>     ze'e ba ku mu cribe su'o roi ku zasti
>     From here to eternity, exactly five bears will be such that each at least
>     at one time exists.
>
>     ze'e ba ku mu cribe ro roi ku zasti
>     From here to eternity, exactly five bears will be such that each at every
>     time exists.
>
>     ze'e ba ku su'o roi ku mu cribe  zasti
>     From here to eternity, there will be at least one time when exactly five
>     bears exist.
>
>     ze'e ba ku ro roi ku mu cribe  zasti
>     From here to eternity, every time time will be such that exactly five
>     bears will exist at that time.
>
> All say different things. And that's just with {ro roi} and {su'o roi}.

I don't see what this says regarding the impossibility of using this mega-set.

To me 1 & 3 and 2 & 4 look identical in terms of final meaning:

{ze'e ba ku mu cribe su'o roi ku zasti}

"in-all-of future, 5 of some set of bears, will at some points exist"

{ze'e ba ku su'o roi ku mu cribe cu zasti}

"in-all-of future will at some points exist 5 of some set of bears"

> > > > > This is what I mean: In many/most contexts particles of dust won't
> > > > > be available as possible referents without some extra work from the
> > > > > speaker. So if you say {le tanxe cu vasru no da}, "the box contains
> > > > > nothing", dust particles won't count as a disproof of the assertion. Of
> > > > > course, any participant may bring dust particles into the discourse
> > > > > and then they will have to be dealt with somehow, but until and unless
> > > > > that happens, they don't count. You seem to want them to always count,
> > > > > so that {le tanxe cu vasru no da} is practically always false.
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying that you lose the ability to express yourself?
> > >
> > > No, in what way am I saying that?
> >
> > If {le tanxe cu vasru no da} is practically always false, then the
> > implication is that it's hard to say it in a way that means I'm just
> > talking about sensible things - not dust, and not molecules. I was
> > just asking if you wanted to imply that, and I see that you did not.
>
> Umm, again, I misread your question. Yes, I am saying that using
> your system you lose the ability to express yourself concisely.

Saying "L_ zasti" instead of "da" isn't that much of a loss, and I
really can't see how this objection applies to anything else aside
from this limited example.

(my{le tanxe cu vasru no L_ zasti} = your{le tanxe cu vasru no da})

> > > > Given your example, {L_ tanxe cu vasru no da}, exactly how /would/ I
> > > > make the assertion that there is *nothing* in the box?
> > >
> > > You mean how would you emphasize the "nothing"? With {ba'e}:
> > >
> > >        le tanxe cu vasru ba'e no da
> > >        The box contains *nothing*.
> >
> > No, sorry. I mean how would I say that the box contains nothing - no
> > molecules, no dust, etc.?
>
> This is how *I* would say that:
>
>    le tanxe cu vasru no da to no maisle .e no pulce .e zo'e si'a toi
>
> That is of course a much less likely thing to say than the usual
> "nothing", so it is proper that it takes a bit more effort.

Erm. "The box contains nothing" - how would I say that? I don't mean
the nothing as in in-context, and I don't mean "not stuff like
molecules and dust". Just "nothing" (no existing thing).

> > > >Does {mi panpi
> > > > no da} mean that I am at peace with nothing? Or is it just nothing
> > > > that we've mentioned?
> > >
> > > "I am at peace with no one" would be a better translation, since the
> > > candidates for being at peace with will normally be people.
> >
> > One could also not be at peace with a hand that looks like a flipper,
> > a broken lamp - that sort of thing.
>
> One could, but that's less likely, so if I had to translate to {panpi no da} to
> English, in the absence of further context, I would go with "at peace with
> noone".
>
> > "There is not a thing that I am at
> > peace with", with the implication that there are some things that you
> > could be at peace with.
> >
> > > Relevant things are not necessarily or even usually things that have
> > > been mentioned before. Things mentioned are almost automatically
> > > relevant, but the converse does not hold. Most relevant things usually
> > > would not have been mentioned.
> >
> > I agree, though that doesn't quite answer my question.
>
> {mi panpi no da} means "I am at peace with noone/nothing". It is not
> necessarily about things previously mentioned. Without context, it could
> not possibly be about things previously mentioned because nothing was
> previously mentioned, of course.

So {mi panpi no da} could mean that I'm at peace with *nothing*, or it
could be that I'm not at peace with just people - noone. How would I
be explicit about this? Like if I wanted to be sure that you
understand that I'm saying I'm at peace with nothing, and not some
arbitrary subset of nothing, like "nothing... that is human".

> > > > > > Why is it wrong to use this hypothetical set that includes every
> > > > > > permutation of what could be a bear in every place at every time
> > > > > > [...]?
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't say it's wrong, I'd say it's humanly impossible.
> > > >
> > > > What's humanly impossible?
> > >
> > > To make use of a set that doesn't exist.
> >
> > The set is hypothetical. I could make use of "unicorn" though no
> > unicorns exist.
>
> Perhaps I should have said "to make sensible use of such a bag of cats
> as the postulated set" or something like that.

I don't understand what you mean by that.

> > > > In the email directed at John on May 16, 2006 7:25 PM, starting "It
> > > > /is/ dependant on the /setting/" I offered the sentences spoken by
> > > > aleks's speakers, except in a form that I consider, and hope, is
> > > > complete, or fool-proof. I don't know if John has addressed them, but
> > > > I would like to know what someone who thinks that you can't make
> > > > complete restrictions would find incomplete about them.
> > >
> > > Not sure what this would prove, but for example you had to assume
> > > that {cpana} admits stones on the game board, but not stones already
> >
> > The definition of {cpana} I was using then was "directly supported by
> > from below".
> >
> > > inside the bag. I don't have a problem with that, but it shows that
> > > what counts as cpana depends on the context. In other contexts,
> > > the stones already in the bag will count as being cpana the table, (for
> >
> > My used definition of {cpana} was wrong, I should have said {lamji cpana}.
>
> So you were excluding stones left on the board after the game had
> finished? Those were not asked to be put into the bag?

My definition of {cpana} was X. X was incorrect. If I had really
wanted to say X, I would have said {lamji cpana}. Under {lamji cpana},
stones on the board are not asked to be put in the bag.

But since the word used was {cpana}, then what I had said was "all
stones supported from below by the table".

> > > example in "bring everything cpana the table into the house"), and
> >
> > I wouldn't be talking about just stones then - I'd be talking about
> > "things such that are on the table" - it just so happens that the
> > stones in the bag are a component part of that which is on the table
> > (i.e. the bag of stones).
>
> What if you lose some molecules of the thing on your trip to the house,
> are you still complying with the command?

Of course. I don't lose my identity just because I lose a few
molecules (or even an arm) and neither does the stuff that was on the
table.

> > > in yet another context, stones on the board won't count as being
> > > cpana the table (for example, in "when a stone is captured, you remove
> > > it from the board and put it cpana the table"). So your "put all white stones
> >
> > If you want to be precise about that one, you'd say "{lamji cpana} the
> > table", because if you said cpana you would indeed be saying "pick it
> > up from the board, and then put it somewhere where it's supported by
> > the table from below" (though usually the listener wouldn't be a twit
> > about it). Or you could (and probably would) just say "remove the
> > stone from the board".
>
> I'm not saying there is only one way to say it. I'm saying that there is
> no infinitely precise, invulnerable to irrelevant objections, way to say it.

Two objections can be made: that our bounds for what we consider a
bear will not align, and that the identity of something is uncertain.
Neither is a complaint against complete restrictions, they just say
that language is ambiguous in other ways.

If lojban had just 30 words, and so most speech was ambiguous, would
it be sensible to say that since it's probably going to be ambiguous
anyway, we shouldn't add the rest of the words? (Point being that I
want to be shown that this proposal does nothing significant, *not*
that it doesn't cover every case where there's ambiguity in Lojban.)

> > It also depends on how words like "remove" and "put into" are defined
> > - is it "ensure that it is removed..", "ensure that it is in..", or do
> > they mean "perform the action of taking a stone off of the board",
> > "perform the action of putting the stone in from the outside"?
>
> Right. Words are never defined with such precision that your proposed
> {ro} could ever be applied with absolute certainty.

I disagree. Lojban {punji} is explicit - you have to perform the
action. That seems pretty certain to me. Regardless, you're trying to
move out of the scope of my proposal. This can't cover every problem
(namely the two objections that I just mentioned), but it does cover
some rather important ones.

> > > that are on the table into the white bag" is perfectly clear, even excessive,
> > > given the context, but it is not context independent.
> >
> > I think that it is independant (of context). Given my responses, can
> > you think of other objections?
>
> Yes, this game can go on for ever. You give a "complete" description.

What game? I'd screwed up on a definition (not on a restriction), and
the rest of my responses were to correct you where you thought that
there were ambiguities but there were none.

> I think of an objection that under normal circumstances would be irrelevant.
> You adjust either the description or the situation so that the objection no
> longer applies. I think of yet another normally irrelevant objection to the
> new description/situation. You adjust, etc. Even if at some point I can no

I'm not adjusting because I screwed up on my restriction, I'm
adjusting because I screwed up on my definition (I thought a word
restricted something in some way implicitly, and it didn't.)

> longer think of an objection, what does that prove? Only that I'm not
> imaginative enough, not that the description you finally gave is precise to
> an absolute degree.

If I were you, I too would be anxious to show this pattern. But it
hasn't emerged, so you're jumping the gun. And conversely, if it does
emerge, you finding problems with my restrictions would only show that
I'm not skilled enough in Lojban and in restrictions to provide a
decent one. So hopefully I can show that you can't show anything wrong
with these restrictions right off the bat.

(1) A: Put (all the black stones that are cpana this table now) in
this black bag

Here's a rough idea of the situation, so that you don't think I'm
changing anything: There's one table and one black bag in my
perception. All the black stones supported-from-below-by the table are
from the game-set (and therefore fit in their bag). There are no
stones in the black bag, because they were dumped out, so saying just
cpana is exactly what I want to say.

So, what have I failed to restrict?

I'd like to point out that your initial argument seemed very certainly
to be that I would have to add and add and add to the restriction, and
never manage to "restrict completely". It was you, was it not, who
brought up "the price of infinite precision..."?


> > > > > Under normal circumstances none of
> > > > > those less-than-absolute-certainties interfere with understanding.
> > > >
> > > > By normal circumstances, you mean not instructions, contracts, etc.?
> > >
> > > No, I do mean to include those. For example the "all bears killed by people
> > > must be accounted for under the quota" that I cited was from a contract.
> >
> > The contract is probably using my{L_ cribe}, though context would be
> > very unambiguous in that contract. The contract really should say "all
> > bears in the X valley (henceforth referred to as 'da')"...
>
> Well, it seems clear enough to me as it stands:
> <http://www.grrb.nt.ca/pdf/wildlife/grizzly/Grizzly%20Bear%20Management%202002.pdf>
> Notice that it does have a set of definitions at the beginning, but it doesn't

Yes, I see that it makes the spatial tense "sticky", among other
things, which is how it would be translated into Lojban, so your
objection that said something like "it's implied but never stated
which bears, but we *assume* that it's bears in the..." is not
accurate. We don't assume, it's stated right there.

> make any distinction between real and imaginary bears, for example. It is
> taken for granted from the context that it's about real bears. And the sentence

This is English. Lojban takes it for granted that it's not about
hypothetical bears as well, as I'm going to show you. (And it should
screw up both your and my perceptions.)

> I quoted makes use of the context as set up at the beginning of the contract.

They're not setting up context, they're adding stickiness in terms of
tense (which was your concern), and basically using something like
{smuni} to redefine certain other words.

> > What I (and I think also you) actually want to say is "take all bears
> > such that are rinju (restrained by) that thing (that cage) to the
> > infirmary".
> >
> > So no, I assert that context doesn't specify the meaning of the word,
> > it's just that I messed up on my example(s) (erm, I blame English).
>
> A: Take all bears such that are rinju that cage to the infirmary.
> B: I'm afraid I can't do that, sir.

"Take all bears" (ko) does not imply this sort of perfective, I think,
so the zookeeper is just being a twit. But this is a non-issue, since
his reasoning is messed up further down.

> A: Whyever not?
> B: See, just before you said "all bears such that are rinju that cage", an
> imaginary bear just popped in there, constrained by the cage and all, and
> then just popped out again. How could I possibly take it to the infirmary
> since it doesn't look like it's coming back.

Imaginary bears don't inhabit the same ... "universe of perception" as
'real' bears (unless you're insane). But I'll ignore that for my
ensuing responses. There's an even bigger problem looming regarding
hypothetical bears, which affects our positions equally. (Getting way
ahead of myself, the rule of all languages is that every
restriction/sumti that isn't part of a zasti has an implicit zasti
(inner) restriction. If this was not the case, then yes, he'd actually
have to have {poi zasti} in there.)

> A: I didn't see any imaginary bears popping in there.
> B: That's probably because it was me who imagined it, sir. Besides, I
> imagined it popping in behind the big bear, so you wouldn't have seen
> it anyway.

If it's in his imagination, and he's not the one that spoke the
command, when what business does he have telling the admiral (as I'll
call him) what the admiral meant when he said it? Use the perceptive
definitions of the *speaker*, as best as you can guess at them (yes, I
did just admit that there is vagueness in Lojban that I'm not trying
to cover).

> A: Take the bloody things to the infirmary right now, you ...!
> B: All right, all right, but you shouldn't go about using inner {ro} if you
> don't really mean it, sir.

It's rather easy to knock down this example, because it misrepresents
my proposal and puts it in an English framework. The objections raised
by the zookeeper are wrong. Or perhaps you can show that I've messed
up somewhere.