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

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 6/6/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > --- Maxim Katcharov
> <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/5/06, John E Clifford
> > > <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- Maxim Katcharov
> > > <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 5/29/06, Jorge Llambías
> > > > > <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On 5/29/06, Maxim Katcharov
> > > > > <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd"
> when
> > > you
> > > > > say "the students" does not
> > > > > > > mean that "the students" does not
> refer
> > > to
> > > > > a group of students. It
> > > > > > > does.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's the singularist view, yes. But
> it
> > > is
> > > > > not the only possible view.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok, then please show an alternate view.
> > > You've
> > > > > flatly asserted that
> > > > > one exists, yet when I ask you to
> explain
> > > it, a
> > > > > vague two-word answer
> > > > > ("the students") with no explanation or
> > > > > demonstrative examples is all
> > > > > I get.
> > > >
> > > > On a pluralist view, reference is a
> relation,
> > > not
> > > > a function, so that a single term may
> refer
> > > > simultaneously to several things.
> > >
> > > Sure. In my singularist view, I too prefer
> to
> > > think of it as a
> > > relation. "run(dog, road)" seems silly to
> me.
> >
> > I don't see what this is illustrating or,
> > perhaps, just what is says about the way
> > reference is treated: function or relation.
> 
> That the pluralist view is not the only one to
> think of things as a relation.

I wasn't talking about things in general but
about the device for giving the referet of an
expression.  I don't think anyone ever doubted
that singularists as well as pluralists use
relations (the alternative was demonstrated to be
hopeless in the mid 17th century).
 
> >
> > > The question that I pose
> > > is: what is the nature of the relation
> between,
> > > say, Alice (one of the
> > > students that surrounds the building) and
> the
> > > surrounding of the
> > > building? The relation is crystal clear
> between
> > > Alice and the wearing
> > > of a hat, but the building-surroundment
> > > relation seems to be
> > > vaporizing as xorxes tries to nail it down.
> I
> > > suspect that this is
> > > because the true nature of this pluralist
> > > relationship is that of a
> > > mass - the relationship is that Alice is
> part
> > > of a mass/group that
> > > surrounds the building, and that there
> simply
> > > is no other sensible
> > > interpretation.
> >
> > Well, I suppose that Alice's relation
> surrounding
> > the building (when she is one of the students
> > surrounding the building)is "participation."
> I
> 
> Participation in an event? xorxes already
> offered this. Consider "the
> students surround the students". What is Alice
> participating in?

Well, is Alice among the surrounding or the
surrounded?  Those seem to be the two events in
which she could participate.  In the one case she
is (more or less) on the outside looking in, in
the other on the inside looking out.
 
> > suppose that giving it a name is not going to
> > satisfy you (quite rightly) but if I lay out
> the
> > formal specifications of the relation, you
> will
> > just say "Oh, that's just membership in the
> > group."
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what I'll say, because
> that's exactly what it is.
> It's a mistake to think that masses can only be
> physical lumps of
> something. For example, 1000 people can be
> foolish each (by gathering
> fools together, and inciting them each to do
> foolish things), or
> together they can "participate" in a
> large-scale foolishness, without
> being foolish each. What this is saying is that
> they're component
> parts of an action, the action of being
> foolish. Same thing, different
> perspective, still a mass.

This is beginning to look like your sense of
"mass" or "group" or whatever is less about the
things involved and more about what they are
involved in.  That is dangerously close to making
the distinction between distributive and
collective predication but in (as in Lojban)
misleading terms.
 
> > Or if I try to specify it in extension,
> > spelling out how she particpates (standing
> NEbyN
> > of the building at the same time as others
> are
> > standing at the other points of the compass,
> say)
> > you will relate that to being a member of the
> > group as well.
> 
> Well, yes. This is the method of participation.
> For example, I can say
> "together the three men lifted the piano, by
> method of one man
> directing, and two men bearing".

This tells me what each does by way of
participating, but I still don't see anything
like a group here unless it is just the fact of
the perticpation being described in some
organized way.  And that is just what a pluralist
would mean by "together," more or less.


> > To which I can only say
> > "Precisely" -- singularist and pluralist
> > languages are two different ways of stating
> the
> > same facts.
> 
> Not quite. The pluralist view asserts that you
> don't introduce masses.
> Instead, there's a special "bunch-together" (or
> something - it hasn't
> exactly been elaborated upon) that supposedly
> handles the questions
> raised by the removal of "mass".

Well, you haven't introduced any masses yet
either (aside from assuring me that they are
there).  Back to the students around the
building.  Each student occupies a place wrt the
building and other students, roughly (let's say)
that if simultaneously each student joined hands
with thei neighgbor on each side the result would
be a closed loop and the footpad of the building
(and little else?) is entirely inside the loop. 
The way I am reading the claim, I think it
requires that each student intends to be part of
surrounding the building, but there are other
readings which don't demand that.  There are
problably more consitions but this seems to me to
be the essential one.  The "together" of the
pluralist is just the fact that this pattern
requires all the students involved (which is
trivial) and perhaps that with many fewer
students similar patterns (that formed closed
loops arounf the building) are not possible --
certainly that no one student can form such a
pattern.  Does the groupiness consist of anything
other than this? You've already said it is not a
thing over and above the students, so that the
students form a pattern seems to be the most
obvious next choice.  But that, of course, means
that for reality, it just says what the pluralist
says but in differnt words.  If it is something
else, that you need to say what and demonstrate
that it really is there.  It seems that the
pluralist says "there are these students and they
form this pattern" and the singularist says
"there is this pattern and the students for it"  
Why this stife there be/'twixt Tweedle-Dum and
Tweedle-Dee?

> > They are completely
> > intertranslatable in a one-one mechanical
> way.
> > You want a pluralist claim that is not
> > interpretable as a singularist one and there
> just
> > ain't any.  This whole discussion is totally
> > vacuous.
> 
> If pluralist "loi ci tadni" translated into "da
> poi gunma lo ci
> tadni", then everything would be just fine. But
> that's supposedly not
> what it translates to.
 
Well, I am not sure why not, but I'll trust
xorxes on this.  A pluralist would read this
simply as saying "something which is lo ci tadni
taken collectively", that is "lo ci tadni taken
collectively" which looks essentially right, if
not in some detail.  Not a thing, in a word, but
a way that some students are treated
linguistically.

 > >
> >
> > > > A sentence
> > > > using this term will be true if those
> things
> > > are
> > > > in the extension of the predicate in the
> > > > appropriate way, either individually or
> > > together.
> > > >  From this basis, a complete semantics
> can be
> > > > (has been) developed, which produces the
> > > > classical system with the "among"
> relation
> > > added.
> > >
> > > Elaborate? To me, "among" has implications
> of
> > > being "among a group such that".

Well, of course it would; you are a believing
singularist.  For a pluralist, "x is among y"
just means that x is one of the ys.  

> > And so it does -- when used by a singularist.
> > When used by a pluralist, it doesn't.  But
> the
> > properties of "among" are the same for both.
> 
> But in the pluralist view, there's still a
> group there, you just don't
> choose to acknowledge it, right?

Where?  Go through the whole pluralist semantics
and nothing like a group turns up, just things,
one or several as the case may be.  At the end of
it all, it is hard to say where the
unacknowledged group might be.
 
> >
> 
=== message truncated ==

<<>
> > >  In a totally parallel way, we can develop
a
> > > semantics with things and masses and the
> > usual
> > > definitions of truth and get the same
> > classical
> > > system with "among" added.  What is said is
> > the
> > > same, the conditions for truth are totally
> > > intertranslatable, and so on.
> > >
> > > > I doubt that you'll be left anything to
> > explain
> > > > your position with
> > > > once you start explaining. The pluralist
> > view
> > > > relies on not looking
> > > > too deeply at what "the students" means,
> > > > because once you do you see
> > > > that it's either a mass, or the students
> > > > individually.
>
> This is merely metaphysical hubris: it's my
point
> of view, so the other must be defective in some
> way.  Unfortunately, any way that the pluralist
> view is defective, the singularist is defective
> in an exactly matching fashion (in this case
> creating an entity that has no place in
reality).

What you just responded to wasn't so much an
argument as a challenge.
Fact is, explanations of how "bunch-together"
differs from "mass"
aren't really available. I attribute this to
there being no
explanation of "bunch-together" that is different
from "mass".>>

I attribute it to the fact that there is no
difference except verbiage.  You seem to think
that the mass form the explanation is right and
the the other wrong, which is odd if they are the
same explanation.  However, this is all empty,
since we have neither explanation at hand yet (I
have tried to suply one but I don't know whether
you will buy it).

<<> > > > >
> > > > > > Show me how and what "the students"
> > refers
> > > > to.
> > > > >
> > > > > In the pluralist view, it does not
refer
> > to
> > > > one thing. It refers to
> > > > > many things,
> > > > > i.e. the many students.
> > > >
> > > > Ok, then when I say "group of students",
I
> > too
> > > > am "referring to many things".>>

I agree, but you seem to think that you are
actually referring to one thing, the group.  At
least you talk that way.

<<> > > > Avoiding the word "mass"/"crowd" when
you
> > say
> > > > "the students" does not
> > > > mean that "the students" does not refer
to
> > a
> > > > group of students. It
> > > > does.>>

Well if you mean by "a group of students" only
what a pluralist means by "the students", then
there is no problem, but you seem then to be
misled by what you say into insisting that there
is only (or also) one thing, the group.

<<> > > By you, yes.  By xorxes, no -- it is all
> > about
> > > the pictures in your head.
> > >
> > > > "[The [many students]]" refers to a group
> > of
> > > > students.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Additionally, I don't think that
Lojban
> > > > uses this mistaken concept of
> > > > > > "plural predication": it seems that
the
> > > > book that describes it has not
> > > > > > been published yet, and so Lojban
> > predates
> > > > it by about 20 years.
> > > > >
> > > > > That may be true. Is your argument then
> > that
> > > > conservatism requires
> > > > > that we stick with the singularist
view?
> > (CLL
> > > > does concede that pronouns
> > > > > at least can refer to "individuals" or
> > > > "masses" depending on context,
> > > > > so even there one can find, at least in
> > > > embryonic form, the pluralist view.)
> > > >
> > > > My argument here was that the burden of
> > proof
> > > > is on you to show that
> > > > a) this pluralist view exists and is
> > correct,
> > >
> > > Exists is easy; there is the book (and a
> > number
> > > of others going back to the late thirties).
> > Is
> > > correct doesn't arise if the alternative is
> > the
> > > usual singularist view, since they are the
> > same
> > > thing.
> > >
> > > > and b) that Lojban uses
> > > > this pluralist view. Until you do this,
you
> > > > should not attempt to use
> > > > this pluralist view in Lojban.
> > >
> > > We can't tell, of course, which one Lojban
> > uses
> > > because we can't get inside Lojban's head.
> > > Further, Lojban does not have devices for
> > > expressing some crucial distinction in the
> > > theory.
> >
> > Which distinctions?
>
> Primarily the difference between distributive
and
> collective predication.  Even {loi} does not
> appear to be just collective predication -- it
> seems clearly to involve corporate and Urgoo
> cases as well.  And there are cases which
cannot
> be dealt with using gadri.>>

Examples? I see no practical differences between
corporate masses and
regular masses, and I'm not familiar with Urgoo
cases at all. >>

Corporate masses (I don't much like that
terminology since it sugtgests more similarity
than I think justified)continue to be the same
even with a change of components; they also
inherit properties from their components
directly: if a component (acting as such) does or
is something, the corporation does or is, too. 
Corporations also have properties in which some
components do not participate. I suppose there
are other charateristics but these are enough to
separate then from ordinary (collective
predication) masses.  Urgoo is the stuff of which
some kind of thing is made: all dogs are chunks
of Dog, for example -- as are dog organs and the
mixture that results from a steamroller rolling
over a pack of dogs.  This is an actual mass-noun
concept.  So far as I can tell, Urgoo is like
corporations in some respects: it remains the
same even if its representations change, it
inherits  propeties from its manifestations.  It
differs in that it is homogenous, does not have
components, although the manifestations play a
somewhat similar role, but an Urgoo can exist
without any manifestations at all.  I think these
two are enoguh different to justify some separate
consideration but both have been folded into the
muddle that is CLL mass.

<<Dividing
things into special classes of masses isn't very
useful. Yes, the
components of water are usually more water, and
yes, perhaps two
car-makers together have the potential to be seen
as a single car
maker, while two bottles together would not be a
single bottle.
However, while this serves to explain what things
can be seen as
masses and which can't, it doesn't say anything
about masses as they
are. A mass is just a mass - who cares if you can
split it up into
more of the same or not?

This seems to be about Urgoo and corproations,
not about masses in what I think of as the
currently primary sense participants (or a group
of particpants) which are predicated of together
(which is predicated of directly).

<<>
> > > So the best thing to say is that Lojban
> > > ut nunc does not adhere to either view but
> > > sometimes does things that look like one,
> > > sometime like the other.  The proposal,
> > stripped
> > > of its picture thinking, is just to make
> > Lojban
> > > adequate for the view(s) and so get rid of
a
> > > number of false starts and missteps that a
> > > previous state of ignorance forced on us.
> >
> > My position is that if there was a state of
> > ignorance before, it's
> > being solved now by inducing a confusion, and
> > then not thinking too
> > deeply so that one does not see the problems.
>
> Well, that is polemics, not testable claims. 
Or,

Sure. My arguments lie elsewhere.>>

Where?  Assertion is not argument.

<<> if testable, then false, since the theory is
> there before you (the one that is not easily
> documentable is the singularist one, actually).

It's difficult to document?>>

Yes, while there is plenty of stuff about set
theory and standard logic, there is nothing much
that deals directly with the issue of how sets
(C-set, L-sets to a lesser extent) solve the
problems of representing plurals.  The standard
language does not have predicates that do the
trick directly and the various work-arounds seem
to be discussed very rarely.


<<> <<>
> > > >
> > > > > Then what surrounds the building?
Please
> > > give an explanation,
> > > > > hopefully a detailed one, as opposed to
a
> > > vague 2-word answer.
> > > >
> > > > I'm afraid nothing further I might add
will
> > > change your mind. Luckily
> > >
> > > Why are you using the word "further" here?
> The
> > > only thing you've done
> > > to change my mind is answer "the students"
> when
> > > I ask "what does 'the
> > > students' refer to?".
> >
> > But that is a completely adequate answer.  If
> you
> > don't see that, then it is unlikely that
> anything
> > else will work either.  I would be inclined
to
> > have said that none of this matters, but that
> is
> > not going to be a point that works 200 some
> > entries into the discussion.
>
> No, it's not an adequate answer. When you ask
me
> about my position,
> "what does 'together the students' refer to?",
or
> "what does 'the
> students (individually) refer to?", I can, and
> have, given answers
> that were much more elaborate than "together
the
> students" (aka
> "mass") and "the students (individually)" (aka
> "bunch-individually"),
> respectively (though the answers were still a
bit
> crude). I could
> potentially write pages of explanations of the
> differences between the
> two. Not so with "bunch-together". The best
that
> can be done with that
> one is to call it by different names.>>
>
> But, of course, "bunch" (outside its technical
> use) or "mass" or even "student individually"
> also adds nothing to the discussion: it is a
word
> with (to a pluralist certainly) has not
> significant content.

"Mass"/"together" expands to "x1 is a mass with
components x2". This
is an actual relation. I consider that as
significant in terms of
content as you can get.>>

But you offer no evidence that it applies here. 
"Together" is a real situation as well and I have
offered an explanation of what it means in
different terms.  What does "is a mass composed
of" mean in different, neutral, terms.  Failing
that we are just talking by one another, since we
are using language radically differently.

<<> They, on the other hand,
> would find oit odd that you cannot understand
> such a straightforward English expression as
"the
> students"  (especially since you seem to
> understand the mysterious "the mass of
students").

It's about as mysterious as "the building for
students" - that is, not
mysterious at all. "the students", on the other
hand, is ambiguous: it
can refer as in "the students wore hats" or "the
students (as a mass)
surrounded the building", and then, of course,
there's also "the
students (as a bunch-together) surrounded the
building", which nobody
has really explained  or demonstrated as being
different from "as a
mass", though copious flat assertions of the sort
have been made.>>

But you, of course, have nowhere demonstrated
that  "as a mass" is different from "together"
nor explained what it meant.  You have asserted
it is superior, but that is just your say-so.  On
the other hand, if you really believe, as you
seem to be saying here, that the two expressions
mean the same thing, what is the argument all
about?


<<> Note that, if you do write pages explaining
the
> differnce, the pluralist can take it, make a
few
> uniform changes and provide you with the
> explanation you want for the difference between
> "the students individually" and "the students
> together."

Please, do it then! Do it with the crude
paragraphs I've offered. What
are you arguing this with me for, when simply
demonstrating this would
solve everything?>>

Gladly.  Pleas provide the explanation for the
mass-talk form.  Note, this will require saying
it without assuming masses or giving a fairly
complete formal system for masses.

<<>
>
> <<>
> >
> > > > for you, and for anyone else who prefers
> the
> > > singularist view, nothing
> > > > in Lojban prevents you from putting that
> view
> > > into practice. If you are
> > > > consistent with your view you simply
won't
> > > apply a distributive and a
> > > > non-distributive predicate to the same
> sumti,
> > > you will always have
> > > > to split your bridis in two in such
cases.
> > > This may make some things
> > > > more cumbersome to express, and I see
> nothing
> > > gained by it, but it's
> > > > always doable.
> > >
> > > Please show (a) and (b) before attempting
to
> > > use your pluralist view
> > > in Lojban. Until you do, you should use the
> > > singularist view.>>
>
> Why?  It is not privileged until shown to be so
> (which it cannot be, of course).  Lojban is not
> consistently either -- assuming we could tell
> them apart.
>
> <<> As noted, Lojban's adherence to the
> singularist
> > view in detail is as open to exception as a
> > pluralist view -- Lojban can't express either
> one
> >  in any thorough way.
> >
> > > > > This brings us right back to:
> > > > >
> > > > > 2) You can't use {lo danlu cu bajra
gi'e
> > > blabi} to refer to a white
> > > > > dog and running cats,
> > > >
> > > > Right, because the animals that are
running
> > > are not the same animals
> > > > that are white. In the case of the
> students,
> > > the people that are wearing the
> > > > hats are the same people that are
> surrounding
> > > the building. If they were
> > > > not the same people you could not use one
> > > sumti for both predications.
> > >
> > > You're switching the meaning of "the
> students"
> > > in mid-sentence. The
> > > thing that surrounds the building is one
> thing.
> >
> > I wonder if this is really defensible.  If
you
> > ask someone how many things are surrounding
the
> > building, I expect that the answer "Fifty
> > students" will be more frequent than "One
group
> > of students." "A bunch of students" is also
> very
> > likely, but flat ambiguous, if you think
> > singularist and pluralist are really
different.
>
> If I ask someone what surrounds the building,
> they'll answer "a bunch
> of students" or "a group of students". "Bunch"
> will be used in the
> sense of "group", and not in the sense that
we've
> defined it for the
> purposes of this conversation.>>
>
> You will no doubt take it that way; how are you
> sure the speaker meant it that way or even that
> he can sense the difference?

Uh, because "bunch" doesn't have the definition
that we've assigned it
(for the sole purposes of this argument) in
common use. Bunch is
simply "group", with implications of the things
being close together -
"bunch of twigs", etc.>>

Well, it does seem to have that meaning in my
dialect.  That is, when I say "a bunch of things"
I am not implying that there is anything other
than those things there (not even necessarily
close together).  I presumably have some reason
for dealing with them together but that is
nothing "out there" called "bunch," it is just
how I am dealing with them.


<<If they said "the students surrounded the
rope", then you might have
an argument as to how it's meant. But if we say
"the group of students
surrounded the rope", then it's clear that we
mean the *group* (of
students), and not anything else.>>

Not clear at all, since I don't see any group
there, just students.  If you mean "the group of
students" to say, in different words, just what
"the students together" says -- that is, without
any reference to some other thing than the
students -- then, we agree and the arguemnt is
just about which is the better way to talk.  and
the answer would surely be that each does as well
as the other, up to personal preferences.

<<>
> << I will less frequently get the answer
> "fifty students", because it's seldom that
people
> miss the forest for
> the trees, or in this case the crowd for each
> student, and when I do
> receive that answer, it'll be in the sense of
> "fifty students
> together".>>
>
> Precisely (though I am not so sure about your
> statistics).  They mean the 50 students
together,
> not something other than the students.

You seem to think that "introducing" the entity
of this student group
is as odd as introducing the entity of a baboon.
It's not. It's
already in context.

"The 50 students surrounded the building" and
"the group of 50
students surrounded the building" are synonymous
in meaning. It's just
that one of them uses the word "group", which
invokes a certain frame
in your mind that the omission of the word
wouldn't.>>

Then what the Hell is this argument about?  One
person talks one way, the other the other, as
their taste leads them.  And, of course, that is
just what the formalism says: whether you give a
pluralist or singularist interpretation to the
system, the logic is the same.  

> Forst are
> just trees after all (with some exceptions like
> willow forests which are apparently just one
> tree). (I don't of course, really mean this.  I
> am just pointing out how useless taking what
> someone says is in figuring out which of the
> identical sides they are on.

A forest is not the same thing as a set/"bunch"
of trees, just as a
human is not just a set/"bunch" of organs... just
as a crowd
surrounding a building is not just a set/"bunch"
of students.>>

And the difference is...?  I suppose it is
somethign that hold them all together, a common
interest them.  that is something about us
usually, although it is often helped by
propinquity and short-chain causation and the
like.

<<>
> <<>
> > > The thing(s) that wear
> > > hats are each something different. One
thing
> > > being composed of others
> > > does not mean that it is the same as each
> > > component part.
> >
> > And no one said it was.
> >
> > > I am composed of my organs. When I run, my
> > > organs do not run. My
> > > organs together (i.e. my body) runs.
> >
> > Even that is open to some question; bodies
tend
> > to be -- for purposes like running -- more
than
> > the sum of their parts (well, at least
> different
> > from).
>
> Right. They aren't a mathematical set, they're
a
> mass.
>
> More than that too, an organism.  That is, the
> organs in an organization.  Without the
> organization, the organs are just a pile of
> specimens.

That's what I mean when I say mass. I discussed
this earlier using the
example of a piece of graphite and a piece of
wood not quite being a
pencil. Search for the term "graphite" if you're
interested.>>

Ah, that was the point of that story. It was not
very clear to me at the time.  Your use of the
term "mass" is adding yet another meaning to that
already overworked word; can we find another word
for you concept.  But in any case, I don't see
how this helps with the students: they do not
compose and organism or an organic whole, and
maybe not even an organization.  They each fall
into a place in a pattern which we are taking as
significant and by virtue of which say they are
togethre.  Is it also by virtue of this that we
say they are a mass? If not, what is involved? 
If so, why are we having this argument (or, more
accurately, what the Hell are we arguing about,
sinc we see to agree on everything except what
words to use and that is merely a matter os style
and not open to argumentation).

<<> I think you are making the case for a
> body being a corporate entity, not either a
msss
> or a set. We haven't got that developed yet,
but
> it does not seem to say anything useful here --
> unless you want to say that the students
> surrounding the building are also a
corporation.

Can you explain what you mean by "corporation"?
To me, it seems like a
needless taxonomy - how is a corporate mass
different from other
masses?

> I don't think that need be the case and, if it
> were, we would need a discussion different from
> the one so far.
>
> <<>
> > > >
> > > > > and so you can't use {[L_ muno tadni]
cu
> > > [dasni
> > > > > lo mapku] gi'e [sruri le dinju]} to
refer
> > > to a number of students and
> > > > > to a mass composed of students.
> > > >
> > > > Right, because the mass is not the
> students,
> > > so if you only allow singular
> > > > reference, you can refer either to the
one
> > > mass of students or to each
> > > > one student individually.
> >
> > But, of course, you can predicate of that
mass
> > distributively (or could if the language
> > allowed).
>
> What do you mean? Once you've made a mass, it's
> difficult to split it up.>>
>
> Set theory, which seems to be the model for
talk
> of masses,

A mass is a relationship, it need not have
anything to do with set
theory. x1 is a mass of composite parts x2.>>

Huh!? There is a relationship of composition that
defines a mass, but a mass is not a relationship
(notice, by the way, that {gunma} is not a mass
of the sort you descibed earlier). It may also be
that the fact that things stand in a certain
relationship to one another is what gets them
into the mass, but the mass is not that
relationship either.

<<> does indeed not allow direct
> predication of members through predication of
the
> set.  It does it indirectly, by inclusion and
> perhaps some other relations.  This is, of
> course, just an accident of the way the
language
> of set theory was set up.  As Lesniewski and
now
> pluralist logic show, the set up could be
> different, making these distributive
predications
> easier (and more obvious). That is, splitting a
> mass (in this sense) is merely a function of
> language and can be changed with a change of
> language.
>
> <<>
> > > > But if you allow plural reference, then
it
> is
> > > the very same students who
> > > > wear the hats and surround the building.
In
> > > this case, the two predicates
> > > > are predicated of the _same_ referents,
and
> > > so you can use one sumti to
> > > > refer to them.
> > >
> > > What surrounds the building?
> > > (The students.)
> > > Does each student surround the building?
> > > (No.)
> > > Then what is it that surrounds the
building?
> > > (The students.)
> > > So you mean the students together?
> > > (No, the students.)
> >
> > Yes, the students together, not that is
> anything
> > other than the students; it is just a way
that
> > are predicated of
> > >
> > > I'm not being dense when I ask you these: I
> > > understand your position
> > > perfectly. You think that saying "the
> students"
> > > frees you from
> > > implying that they're a group. I recognize
> > > this, and I assert that
> > > it's incorrect. Avoiding the word
> > > "mass"/"crowd" when you say "the
> > > students" does not mean that "the students"
> > > does not refer to a group
> > > of students..
> >
> > Well, actually it does. At least it allows
it.
> >
>
> It does does not refer? What do you mean?>>
>
> I mean that using "the students" rather than
"the
> group of students" does mean that the "the
> students" does not refer to a group.

Ok, then if it's not connected to the act of
"surrounding the
building" by way of a group, then how is it
connected? What is the
relation?>>

Directly by each of them taking a place in a
pattern which constitutes surrounding the
building.  You may call "taking a place" "forming
a group" but there is no necessity in doing so.


<<> Of course,
> you can mean that equally well using "the group
> of students," but it is harder to see. And, by
> parity of reasoning (since the two are formally
> identical)  "the students" does refer to a
group,
> if you want to go that way, although it is
clearer
> if you say "the group of students."
>

What are formally identical? Thinking of them as
a group and not
thinking of them as a group?>>

Well, thinking of them as a group and thinking of
them as acting together.