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

["Jorge Llambías" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 5/23/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> du'emei = x1 is a set with too many members x2

I think that was the original place structure of {mei}, then it was
changed to:

mei [ mem mei ] cardinal selbri
convert number to cardinality selbri;
x1 is the mass formed from set x2 with member(s) x3
[x1 is a mass with N components x3 composing set x2;
x2 is an n-tuple (x2 is completely specified) (= selmei for reordered places);
x1 forms an n-some; x3 (not necessarily a complete enumeration) are
[among the] members of x2]; (cf. cmima, gunma, cmavo list moi)

In my opinion, the original was better, with "set" understood in a
non-technical sense.

> x1 being {lo ro mapku}
>
> Why is {lo ro mapku} being converted into a set, while {ro lo mapku} isn't?

I don't ever use sets, so even when the gi'uste suggests/imposes that a
place must be filled only with a set (it happens to not be the case this time,
but even if was the case), I just ignore it. My reason for doing this
is that sets
don't add anything interesting, and they can quite complicate things.

{lo ro mapku} refers to all hats, but it says nothing about distributivity of
any predicate that applies to them. {loi ro mapku} indicates explicitly that
all hats satisfy the place together/collectively. {ro lo ro mapku}
says explicitly
that each of all hats fits the place by itself.

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.