Re: [lojban] searching

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

Careful:  "imaginary" is often contrasted with "existent", so that is not the relevant distinction.  Unicorns, when in the UD, are also in the extension of "imaginary".  The real problem is that I can search for things that are not even in the UD (impossible things may be a case, but I don't want to exclude them prematurely).  Also, imaginary things are not in your mind, at least as aplace to look fro them (but this gets into the messiness of (real) epistemology and representation theory, which seems wise to avoid now). 
I'm not clear howsets solves working with non-existent things -- even C-sets don't seem to help.

---

From: Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 6:58 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] searching

I am pretty sure that {lo broda cu brode} implies {da poi broda cu brode}
(except that {da} should be a plural variable). In particular, {lo broda}
presupposes {da broda}.

When I say {mi sisku lo crino}, there is no green thing, and no green bunch
of things out of which I can create meaning for the "looking for" predicate.
You could argue that I am looking for something that is among all the green
things, {mi sisku lo ka me lo [ro] crino}, which is ok, except for the problem
with non-existent objects. If I say {mi sisku [lo ka me] lo pavyseljirna}, I am
making a commitment with the belief that da pavyseljirna. It can't be just
an imaginary unicorn, because I am not looking for a unicorn on my mind.
You can also consider contradictory properties. If you said {mi sisku lo blanu
poi na blanu}, I would reply {na'i go'i}! ({mi sisku lo ka blanu gi'e na blanu}
is fine, though).

The non-existence thing could be solved by working with sets, but it is
logically cleaner to work directly with their defining properties.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.


On 8 January 2013 21:20, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
> la latro'a cu cusku di'e
>>
>> It's not that it doesn't, only that it needn't. Specifying explicitly
>>
>> that it doesn't isn't possible.
>
>
> Why not?
>
>
>> va'i xorlo doesn't really "fix" this per
>> se, in that under the modified "x1 looks for x2 at x3" definition, you
>> can't explicitly say "I'm looking for a green thing, I don't care which
>> one", at least not without introducing another bridi.
>
>
> Why? What is the problem with "mi sisku lo crino"? This is exactly the kind
> of thing xorlo fixes.
>
>
> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
>
> --
> 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.