Le mardi 11 février 2014 01:13:22 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit :
la .guskant. cu cusku di'e
> Le lundi 10 février 2014 00:55:01 UTC+9, selpa'i a écrit : Would you
> say that {lo sakta cu me lo najnimryjisra}? For me it would be a very
> definite No.
>
> No, but the current topic is not similar to that but to {lo re prenu
> cu me lo mu prenu}.
Okay, then we still don't understand each other. I (mis-)understood your
{linji} example in a way that is very much like {lo sakta cu me lo
najnimryjisra} and you said my graphical representation described your
views correctly. But judging by your further claims, I now think that
that cannot be the case. So you must have meant something else.
> {lo linji} in that universe of discourse are not individuals but an
> infinite number of non-individuals, because every {lo linji xi my}
> has always another {lo linji xi ny} such that {lo linji xi ny cu me
> lo linji xi my i ku'i naku lo linji xi my cu me lo linji xi ny}, and
> this proposition contradicts the condition for individual {RO DA poi
> ke'a me lo linji xi my zo'u lo linji xi my cu me DA}. Therefore,
> every {lo linji} is neither an individual nor individuals.
Let's try again. Let's use something that can just as easily be imagined
to be infinite: {lo sidbo}. There are infinitely many possible ideas and
thoughts. Let's say that {lo sidbo} contains *all* of them and therefore
has infinitely many referents.
I will enumerate all the referents of {lo sidbo} as s1, s2, s3...
1) [ s1 , s2 , s3, s4 , ... ]
continuing indefinitely.
This first infinitely huge {lo sidbo} can be (randomly) split apart like
this:
2) [ [ s1 , s312 , s15 , ... ] , [ s3 , s9232 , ... ] , [ ... ] ]
Where each sub-bracket again contains infinitely many things that
{sidbo} and each sub-bracket is among {lo sidbo} from step 1.
We can repeat this process infinitely often for each new sub-grouping,
making more and more sub-groupings which will get smaller and smaller
with each step, but will always remain infinite. (Each grouping will
also represent a possible value for a plural variable)
Do you agree up to this point?
Yes.
If so, why do you think that this entails that {lo sidbo} does not refer
to one or more individuals?
{lo sidbo} does not refer to one or more individuals, because, for every {lo sidbo xi my}, there is another {lo sidbo xi ny} such that {lo sidbo xi ny cu me lo sidbo xi my i naku lo sidbo xi my cu me lo sidbo xi ny}, therefore {lo sidbo xi my} does not satisfy the condition for being an individual {RO DA poi ke'a me lo sidbo xi my zo'u lo sidbo xi my cu me DA}. It means that there is no individual {lo sidbo} in this universe of discourse. Therefore {lo sidbo} is neither an individual nor individuals.
In reality, the []-brackets don't actually do anything other than select
multiple values at once. They don't create new individuals, which would
happen with sets or "masses".
This is as far as I can get trying to understand your argument. Why any
of this should indicate that we can sometimes deal with things other
than individuals is still completely unclear to me.
For me the situation is very simple: Each of the s_x above is an
individual and {lo sidbo} refers to all of them.
Each of the s_x above is non-individual because of the proof mentioned above.
Individuals are not a special case to me, they are the only case.
And maybe this helps: Do you see a difference between "referent" and
"individual"? What do you consider the difference to be?
Yes. The identity of referent is defined as follows:
"X are the same thing as Y" =ca'e {X me Y ije Y me X}
On the other hand, "an individual" is defined as follows:
"X is an individual" =ca'e {RO DA poi ke'a me X zo'u X me DA}
Examples:
- {by jo'u cy} and {cy jo'u dy} are not the same referent because {naku zo'u by jo'u cy me cy jo'u dy ije cy jo'u dy me by jo'u cy};
- {by jo'u cy} and {cy jo'u by} are the same referent because {by jo'u cy me cy jo'u by ije cy jo'u by me by jo'u cy};
- {by jo'u cy} is not an individual, because {by me by jo'u cy i naku by jo'u cy me by}, therefore {by jo'u cy} does not satisfy the condition for an individual {RO DA poi ke'a me by jo'u cy zo'u by jo'u cy me DA}.
- if no other referent besides {by} is x1 of {me by}, then {by} is an individual because {RO DA poi ke'a me by zo'u by me DA} is true in this universe of discourse.