Re: [lojban] Re: Cake, Pie or Ice Cream?

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

Why do we need to, C-set theory aside?  Most of the examples given seem to be cases where some items in a bunch also go by another name in a different context, but are still functioning as in this group in this case.  So we can say {a b} is in {a b c} but just now is not functioning as a separate item but as a part of the whole.  I have nothing against C-sets and (finally) know how to use them for the various purposes for which we want sets of some sort (or not, as xorxes would insist) in ordinary language, but these all turn out to be easier and more natural with L-sets (or plural reference).

---

From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, January 10, 2011 11:41:34 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Cake, Pie or Ice Cream?

If you aren't going to do it in the main body of the language, then mekso won't die completely, because we really do need a way to distinguish {a,b,c} and {{a,b},c}; in English it's "the set containing a, b, and c" and "the set containing the set containing a and b <ambiguous pause> and c", which is absolutely terrible.

mu'o mi'e .latros.

On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:41 PM, John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> wrote:

Well, that depends on what you are out to do.  In particular, if the difference
is forced by the nature of the notation but not by the facts on the ground,
then, indeed, there is not a need to make the distinction.  If you have
something else in mind, then there are always C-sets and all that they entail
(most of it with little direct relevance to real life).  On the other hand,
mathematics (though supposedly possible) is hard to do with L-sets.

----- Original Message ----
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sun, January 9, 2011 3:01:51 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Cake, Pie or Ice Cream?

Jorge Llambías, On 09/01/2011 20:19:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 5:04 PM, John E Clifford<kali9putra@yahoo.com>  wrote:
>> Happily, if the sets are L-sets (just the things mentioned), then the issue
of
>> how 'ce' groups is irrelevant, as it is clearly meant to be (I pass over teh
>> objection to talking about L-sets, since that is irrelevant, too).
>
> You seem to be saying that we never talk about sets in the language
> (only in the metalanguage). That's fine with me, we don't really need
> sets. But if so, is there any difference between "ko'a ce ko'e" and
> "ko'a jo'u ko'e"?

Surely there is a need to distinguish {a, b, c} from {{a, b}, c} in ordinary
language and thought, where "{}" is some kind of group with members.

--And.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.