* Friday, 2011-10-21 at 08:46 -0700 - John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> If you want to say that flying dodos look silly, then your domain of discourse
> (at least in Lojban) contains flying dodos. {lo} expressions always imply the
> particular quantification on their defining predication. Not that such things
> need exist, of course (part of the reason I use "particular" rather than
> "existential" for that quantifier).
What's particular quantification? I'm not familiar with the term.
> It is not clear that this is a different approach to tense and
> intensions, though it may be a different approach to domains of
> discourse (looking at Kamp again).
Discourse representation theory? Should I just read about that if I want
to understand you? I think I do have Kamp's paper on my harddrive.
> The properties these nonexistent things may have probably derive from
> the ones they have in worlds where they exist (not necessarily the
> same things, mind you, but the things at the other end of some sort of
> projection)
Not really with you here.
Well, it seems that I didn't understand correctly your solution. I don't
see much wrong with the solution I understood you as proposing... but
I'm happy to have multiple working solutions before having to pick one!
Martin
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> Sent: Fri, October 21, 2011 9:16:20 AM
> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural
> variable
>
> * Friday, 2011-10-21 at 05:51 -0400 - John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
>
> > I think there may be other possibilities. For example, {lo broda} may
> > return a bunch, all of the subbunches in a partition of which broda in
> > sense i.
>
> OK, we can call that sense (is).
>
> ('s' being the roman numeral for 1/2, apparently)
>
> > So, the glorked (whence this word btw) have to be unicorns in
> > some world. Why not in this one?
>
> Because there aren't any unicorns in it.
>
> How about if it had been "flying dodos look silly"? Would you want the
> flying dodos to be in this present world (by which I mean: to ca ca'a
> vofli je cipnrdodo)?
>
> > That is my intention; otherwise I have a mess of problems about cross-
> > worlds identity and the meaning of predication (which, partly,
> > I suppose, is why you want to add {ka'e}).
>
> I don't see how you can coherently get around this mess.
>
> > Now, depending on the context, {lo pavelseljirna cu lazni} may or may
> > not take us to a world where unicorns exist, but the point is that it
> > does not have to; we can and do fold nonexistent unicorns -- items in
> > the extension of {pavelsejirna} -- into our current domain of
> > discourse, which depends on what we say, not on the facts.
>
> It seems you have some very different setup for handling tenses and
> intension than the one I've been assuming - in which there might well be
> entities in the domain of discourse which satisfy pavyseljirna_w for
> some worlds w, but they won't satisfy pavyseljirna_{w_0} for this world
> w_0, because no unicorns currently exist.
>
> Could you explain your setup? I don't see what it could be.
>
> Martin
>
> > On Oct 20, 2011, at 20:10, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> >
> > > * Thursday, 2011-10-20 at 12:26 -0400 - John E. Clifford
> ><kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> > >
> > >> Now I am mor con used than before. Why is there only one bunch off
> > >> people living in glass houses and why must they all exist at one time
> > >> / in one world, and why can't they? I am unclear what restrictions
> > >> you are placing on worlds an domains. I am also unclear as to what
> > >> you think the logical form of "People who live in glass houses should
> > >> install proper insulation" is.
> > >
> > > Hmm. Probably I'm making some assumption which you're not, leading to
> > > confusion. But I'm not sure what that assumption might be. So let me
> > > just express again the issue in different words:
> > >
> > > Ignoring all the more subtle issues we've been discussing, there are two
> > > basic possible bunch-theoretic meanings for {lo}. When applied to
> > > a unary predicate P, it either
> > > (i) returns a bunch X such that P(X)
> > > or (ii) returns a bunch X such that for every atom x below X, P(x).
> > >
> > > ("atom x below X" could also be written "individual x in the bunch X";
> > > I'll continue to use the 'atom' terminology because I think it best
> > > indicates that individuals aren't disjoint from bunches - individuals
> > > are just "singleton" bunches. I'll use the notation "x <= X" to mean
> > > that x is an atom below X (so lower case variables are "singular
> > > variables", i.e. are variables on the atoms sort))
> > >
> > > If we write {lo pavyseljirna cu lazni} to mean "unicorns are lazy"
> > > (which I believe is true - who ever heard of a pack-unicorn or
> > > a unicorn-plough?), the unary predicate in question is probably
> > > (slightly) more precisely expressed by {ka'e pavyseljirna}, and is:
> > >
> > > U(X) <=> "there exists a world w such that pavyseljirna(X) in w".
> > >
> > > Under (i) we get:
> > >
> > > {lo pavyseljirna cu lazni}
> > > -> GL X:U(X). lazni(X)
> > > == "for a glorked bunch X such that U(X) holds, lazni(X) holds"
> > >
> > > whereas under (ii) we get:
> > >
> > > {lo pavyseljirna cu lazni}
> > > -> GL X:(FA x <= X. U(x)). lazni(X)
> > > == "for a glorked bunch X such that U(x) holds for every atom
> > > x below X, lazni(X) holds" .
> > >
> > > Substituting in the definition of U and using distributivity, under (i) we
> >get:
> > >
> > > GL X:(EX w. pavyseljirna_w(X)). lazni(X)
> > > == GL X:(EX w. FA x <= X. pavyseljirna_w(x)). lazni(X)
> > > == "for a glorked bunch X such that for some world every atom below
> > > X is a unicorn, X is lazy"
> > >
> > > while under (ii) we get:
> > >
> > > GL X:(FA x <= X. EX w. pavyseljirna_w(x)). lazni(X)
> > > == "for a glorked X such that for every atom below X there is
> > > a world in which it is a unicorn, X is lazy" .
> > >
> > > So the (ii) case is the one we want, if we want to get at the sense of
> > > the english "unicorns are lazy".
> > >
> > > Did that make any more sense?
> > >
> > > Martin
> > >
> > >> On Oct 19, 2011, at 22:41, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> * Wednesday, 2011-10-19 at 19:11 -0700 - John E Clifford
> ><kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> U\I'm not going to worry about {loi} etc. until I am sutre about {lo} and
> >then
> >
> > >>>> see what is lefyt over that needs dealing with. {lo cipnrdodo) refers
> > >>>> to all the dodos there ever were (suppose that is right for this
> > >>>> context), all of which are thus in the domain of discourse and also in
> > >>>> the extension of {cipnrdodo}. What problem are you having; I just
> > >>>> don't see it?
> > >>>
> > >>> Hmm. So you'd want every dodo which ever lived to now cipnrdodo - even
> > >>> if it doesn't zasti, nevermind jmive?
> > >>>
> > >>> That might work for some cases, but what if we want to say "people in
> > >>> glass houses should install proper insulation"? Even if the people in
> > >>> question (who mostly don't zasti in this possible world, nevermind now)
> > >>> were to ca ca'a prenu, they surely couldn't ca ca'a nenri su'o blaci
> > >>> zdani; nor is there any other world in which they all do.
> > >>>
> > >>> So the bunch of them doesn't satisfy {prenu gi'e nenri su'o blaci
> > >>> zdani} - since there's only one bunch, we would need that the bunch
> > >>> satisfies this in some given world. It doesn't.
> > >>>
> > >>> But each atom (person, in this case) in the bunch does satisfy {prenu
> > >>> gi'e nenri su'o blaci zdani}. So for {lo prenu poi nenri su'o blaci
> > >>> zdani} to get the bunch, we'd need the quantifier over worlds to go
> > >>> inside a quantifier over the bunch. The gadri seems the right place
> > >>> to specify this.
> > >>>
> > >>> Martin
> > >>>
> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----
> > >>>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> > >>>> To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> > >>>> Sent: Wed, October 19, 2011 1:44:49 PM
> > >>>> Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified
> >plural
> >
> > >>>> variable
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * Tuesday, 2011-10-18 at 01:44 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> * Tuesday, 2011-10-18 at 00:47 -0400 - Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> * Monday, 2011-10-17 at 19:46 -0700 - John E Clifford
> > >>>> <kali9putra@yahoo.com>:
> > >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----
> > >>>>>>> From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
> > >>>>>>>> Maybe I finally understand what you mean with your "kinds = maximal
> > >>>>>>>> bunches" idea. Let's see.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> I've been implicitly assuming that in {lo broda}, the tense inside
> the
> > >>>>>>>> description is by default copied from outside it. So {mi ca ca'a
> nelci
> > >>>>>>>> lo pavyseljirna} == {mi ca ca'a nelci lo ca ca'a pavyseljirna}, which
> >is
> > >>>>>>>> false if there are no unicorns.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> I suppose the tense (if there is one) is as contextual as everything
> >else
> >
> > >>>>> about
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> descriptions. The same as the bridi surely is a good guess in general,
> >but
> >
> > >>>>> may
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> be obviously wrong in other circumstances. For example, in
> >generalities,
> >
> > >>>>> the
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>> tense (if that is the right notion) is probably past, present, future
> >and
> >
> > >>>>>>> possible.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Right, so I think I do understand you.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Does this work?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> But there's something of a problem: if the plural referent of {lo broda}
> > >>>>> is meant to satisfy broda, what tense can give us e.g. all dodos ever?
> > >>>>> The plural referent of {lo pu cipnrdodo} must satisfy {pu cipnrdodo},
> > >>>>> i.e. must have satisfied {cipnrdodo} at some point in the past. But that
> > >>>>> means we're picking up some dodos all of which existed at the same time.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So it seems we'd have to have the rule be that {ro lo broda cu broda},
> > >>>>> rather than {lo broda cu broda}, for this to work.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ...and then it might make sense to have {loi broda} be the same as {lo},
> > >>>> except that the plural referent is required to broda (rather than the
> > >>>> atoms below it brodaing). So while {lo pu cipnrdodo} could get the bunch
> > >>>> (aka plurality) of all dodos ever, {loi pu cipnrdodo} would have to get
> > >>>> a bunch all of which cipnrdodod at the same past time (which might imply
> > >>>> that they were all alive at the same time, or if dead at least not too
> > >>>> far decomposed...).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> So this contains some of the essence of the historical meaning of {loi},
> > >>>> and is usefully distinct from (the understanding under discussion of)
> > >>>> {lo}.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Martin
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> 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.
Attachment:
pgpw7dXKJ06ge.pgp
Description: PGP signature