Re: [lojban] Re: Sets and classes

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la djorden cusku di'e

> Saying that containing 0 things is the same as not being a container
> would be pretty broken, though.

If it contains 0 things it is not containing. With Lojban it is
usually more intuitive to think of predicates as verbs.

> We shouldn't just deny that 0 is a
> valid number.

Nobody is denying that.

> su'o da selcmi node ==
> su'o da selcmi naku de ==
> su'o da naku de zo'u da selcmi de ==
> naku roda de zo'u da selcmi de
> It is false that, for all X there is a Y such that X is a set
> containing Y.
>
> i.e., that says exactly what you'd expect from the the first one:
> 	su'o da selcmi node
> 	there is at least one set which contains nothing.

It says there is at least one thing that is not a selcmi of
anything, but nowhere does it say that that thing is a set.

> I don't see why you can't have it be a selcmi be noda.  0 is as valid
> a number as anything else.

Then would you say too that {lo patfu be noda} is a member of
{lo'i patfu}?

A better gloss for {selcmi} might be "membered thing".
Is the empty set a "membered thing"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes



_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com