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

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

Well, less theses about collectivity and more meaning postulates about predicates (and relations).
 Different expressions just behave differently in what lower level behavior of a group are to
count as giving a certainproperty to the group as a whole: some can't every be c-true (is a
student), some can't be d-true (form a line), some sum up the activities of members of a group --
sometimes of the same sort as for the group as a whole (scored a goal), sometimes not (won a
match) -- some have no intermediaries (number 20).  And all possible combinations in between.  We
have to pick the right function for a given predicate, but the semantics here is completely gneral
-- not applied.

--- John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> 
> 
> --- Jorge Llamb�as <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 7/19/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > > I guess I don't see why d-truth implies c-truth; that was certainly
> > > not the intention.  Where did I slip up?
> > 
> > I'm not saying it does. I can't really tell from the definitions whether
> > it does or it doesn't, it would depend on what the n-place
> > functions I(P) are.
> 
> The intention was that d-true and c-true were independent, that is a certain simple sentence
> could
> be one or the other or both. So far as I can tell it works out that way.  If each of the
> individuals among those referred to has the property then the sentence about it is d-true, if
> the
> individuals together have the property then the sentemce is c-true.  Consider "carries
> furniture"
> applied to three movers: each of them carries a chair say, one pair carries a table, a slightly
> different pair carries a bureau and the third pair carries a bookcase, then they all three carry
> the bed.  Clearly, each of them carries furniture (the chairs) and clearly the three of them do
> too -- independently of the fact that each of them does. Now, insofar as carrying furniture is
> concerned, does all the pairwise cases add anything?  Would they if they did not all carry the
> bed?  Would they if no one carried a piece by himself?  Would they if one person did not take
> part
> in the pairwise moving? It seems to me that "carried furniture" is pretty broad and does not go
> into details about how it was done, so that d and c seem enough.  On the other hand, the
> functions
> are set up to take the numbers between 1 and all together into account (though that was not why
> the intermediate numbers are there), so a finer analysis is possible.  I suppose we could expand
> the notion of "collective" by spelling out the various ways it could be satisfied, though I am
> not
> sure we would ever get a totally acceptable list of all the combinations that count -- any
> combination of individual and subgroup participation that encompassed all eventually seems to be
> a
> minimal requirement, I suppose. At this point,I don't see the need to do it, however. 
> 
> > What I'm saying is this: If d-true implies c-true, then there is no point
> > in defining "true" as "d-true or c-true". If d-true does not imply c-true,
> > then there are cases that I would want to be true, but which are neither
> > d-true, nor c-true, so defining true as d-true or c-true is not enough.
> 
> OK, but it does not seem to imply in that way and it does not appear that, as the functions are
> set up and intended, there are any gaps.  That is, HOW they get the property together is not
> mentioned, only that they do.
>  
> > An example:
> > 
> >   The boys, who were wearing hats and carrying chairs, formed a line.
> > 
> > Each of the boys wears a hat, so "the boys wear hats" is d-true,
> > and threfore it is true.
> > All the boys form a line together, so "the boys form a line" is c-true
> > and therefore it is true.
> > The boys carry chairs in pairs, therefore "the boys carry chairs" is
> > neither d-true nor c-true, but I still want it to be plain true.
> 
> So far as I can see, this is (in the present system) simply c-true: the chairs collectively were
> there and now are here and the agency of the change was the boys together somehow.
>  
> > If the boys carrying chairs in pairs makes "the boys carry chairs" c-true,
> > then surely the boys carrying chairs individually must make it c-true as well.
> 
> I agree, in this case.  But it could be c-true without their carrying them individually (as in
> your example above), so it could be c-true and not d-true.  On the other hand,"the students wore
> hats" is d-true but not c-true (on a normal reading) (I suppose there are variant readings that
> could make it c-true but not d-true and one that could make it both).  Long discussions about
> men
> biting dogd (or conversely) suggest that it is often sufficient just to take collective
> readings,
> although the more specific versions are sometimes interesting and even important.  I'll want to
> make allowances for that somewhere eventually, presumably as theses about "collectively" but I
> don't see that I need them for the present issue. 
> 
> > If not, then the definition of c-true would seem to be just true but
> > not d-true,
> > and the introduction of the I(P) functions doesn't add anything that I can see.
> > 
> > mu'o mi'e xorxes
> > 
> > 
> > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
> with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
> you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
> 
>