Re: admirers of 50% of symphonies

[Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>]

> I can try to do my 3 meanings in rough pred.calc. form:
> "I met every admirer of 50% of B's symphonies"
>
> (3) Ax [Ey [y is a set containing 50% of B's symphonies]
>     & [Az [z is a member of y] -> x admires z]] -> I met x
> (2) Ey [y is a set containing 50% of B's symphonies]
>     & [Ax [Az [z is a member of y] -> x admires z] -> I met x]
> (1) Ey [y is a set containing 50% of B's symphonies]
>     & [Az [z is a member of y] Ax [x admires z] -> I met z]
>
> Ignore my previous explanations of what I wanted to say, and try these.
>
> > > > >  (1) Each admirer admires some but not necessarily each of this 50%
> > > > >      of symphonies
> >
> > lei neltce be pisu'o le pimu lei zgikrsimfoni,a
> > The admirers of at least part of the half of the symphonies.
>
> I meant "be pisuho **lo** pimu lei Z".
> But this doesn't work. I want the additional meaning that 50% of B's
> symphonies are such that I met lei admirers of either of them. A context
> in which I met admirers of #2 & admirers of #2 fits what I mean, but
> not a context in which I met only admirers of #2.

This description doesn't match your pred.calc. form. If there are no
admirers of one of the symphonies, the context you want to exclude is
allowed there and in the Lojban form. If none of the symphonies have
zero admirers, then the Lojban form doesn't allow that context either,
just like your pred.calc.

> > > > >  (2) Each admirer admires each of the same 50%
> >
> > lei neltce be le pimu lei zgikrsimfoni,a
> > The admirers of the half of the symphonies.
>
> I don't have a specific half in mind. I want "There are entities
> constituting 50% of B's symphonies such that I met lei people
> who admire each of them".
>
> You offer this, for this meaning:
>   {lo neltce be piro lo pimu lei zgikrsimfoni,a}
> But to me this means that each admirer admires eaho  osbydfeet5%-ie nepeain()
> >>>> 3 ahamrramrsec fapsil ifrn 0
>
>  e eteb iulizirifn,
>  h dieso afo h ypois
> O.S 3 stemaigyugtfr"e eteb opm e "
> o  edt nwhwt e htImatfr()&()
> >>Adi n ft cssdIhvenmn  scfc      ^<notnt yo  en i oeo h ae">>sbe fsmhne nmn.
> --Ad

You became incoherent in the middle of a sentence (or at least so it appears
from my terminal...)

I can guess at your objection. I think we can define {piro lo pimu lei zy}
to be different from {pimu lei zy}. The first one has one level less of
non-specificity, so that admirers of that would all have to admire the same
thing, while admirers of the second are allowed to admire different things.
What do you think?

Jorge