On 6/11/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6/11/06, Maxim Katcharov <maxim.katcharov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The surest way to show that I'm a fool for asking this 30th time
> > is to point me to an explanation that I haven't rightly shown to
> > be unexplanatory.
>
> I don't think you are a fool.
>
> Explanations are pointless at this point, because definitions cannot
> be right or wrong. We are now working with different definitions.
I don't think that this is the issue. Definitions define concepts, or
explain how words are shortcuts for saying much longer things. If we
were talking about the same thing in two different ways, then yes, but
we aren't. And neither of us is saying that each other's definition of
their own concept is wrong - in fact we usually mark things as "your
X" or "my X".
But we're not talking about definitions. I'm asking you to explain or
define or (usefully) exemplify your *concept* itself. I know that
certain words refer to your concept, but I want to know how they are
explained using axioms - things that neither of us have to prove,
things that nobody should really argue against.
For example, both of us understand and agree with a 1to1 relationship:
Alice is inside the school
and both of us understand and agree with the basic plurally
predicative relationship
the 26 students are inside the school >>
Alice is inside the school
Bryce is inside the school
[...]
Zoe is inside the school
and both of us understand and agree with the "mass" relationship
the graphite and the wood are component parts of the pencil >>
the graphite is a component part of the pencil
the wood is a component part of the pencil
and both of us understand and agree with the use of 'variables'
the stones are inside X
X is on the table
and we see how these can be combined
the graphite is a component part of the pencil
the pencil is on the table
the graphite is a component part of X
the X is on the table
and so the explanation of my position is
Alice is a component part of X
X surrounds the building
(where X could be~ "the surroundment of the building", or "surrounder...")
Now, this doesn't prove that Alice actually *is* a component part, or
that X *does* surround the building, but it shows that if we were to
see it this way, then it would be perfectly workable.
I don't see your position as equally sensible. If I were to say "ok,
there's no mass involved", I would have nothing like this to rely on.
I would have
Alice is a referent of X
X surround the building < axiomic explanation of this is needed
but I would be taking this in on faith - it seems that this is
correct, and that there is no mass, so hey, why not?
> At this point your {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju} and my {loi tadni cu
> sruri le dinju} are applicable in different situations. For example, in
> a situation where students are on one side of the building and
> professors are on the other side, in such a way that students
> and professors surround the building together, you can say
> that {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju} = "a group that includes students
> surrounds the building", and I can't say {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju}
> = "students surround the building".
Sure. I'd be perfectly happy to say that
loi tadni cu sruri lo dinju
expands to
[da poi sruri lo dinju] cu gunma [[lo tadni] po'o]
for the purposes of this discussion, since really, the discussion
isn't much affected by it.
However, your position is that it *doesn't* expand using gunma, since
there is supposedly no concept of a mass invoked in one's mind when
one says "the students surround the building". If there's no concept
invoked, then it doesn't expand in that way. In the same way, {lo
gerku} doesn't expand to {lo danlu} (though it's an acceptable way to
see it) - though it may very well expand to something like {lo danlu
be la dog} (or what have you). "That's" would not expand to "that is"
if the concepts suggested by "that is" were not invoked. But if they
were, it would, even if the 'method of invocation' was different.
You treat this expansion like {lo gerku}>{lo danlu} - "you can see it
that way, but that's not quite accurate". I treat it as "that's">"that
is" - different words, but the very same concepts are used.
Specifically, the concept of "mass/parts".
>
> For me {loi tadni} means "students", just like {lo tadni}, and
> the mass gadri in addition indicates that whatever is predicated
> of the students is predicated non-distributively. For you it means
> "a group of things that includes students among its members",
> which is something quite different.
If you'd like, it can be "an entity composed of students", it doesn't
really matter. And yes, this would be quite different, because it
treats the students together as a different entity than each of the
students themselves.
>
> At the beginning of the discussion, I thought we both understood
> what {loi tadni cu sruri le dinju} meant (more or less what it
> has always meant in Lojban) and we were comparing
> different ways of analyzing the sentence to get to that meaning. Now
> it appears that we don't even understand the sentence to
> mean the same thing. Comparing two ways of analyzing it as if
> we thought it meant the same thing for both is pointless.
>
> 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.
>
>