From pycyn@aol.com Fri Aug 31 18:06:56 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 1 Sep 2001 01:06:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 21157 invoked from network); 1 Sep 2001 01:06:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 1 Sep 2001 01:06:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r03.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.99) by mta1 with SMTP; 1 Sep 2001 01:06:55 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.21.108b2401 (4013) for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:06:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <21.108b2401.28c18ea4@aol.com> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 21:06:44 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Induction To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_21.108b2401.28c18ea4_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_21.108b2401.28c18ea4_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/31/2001 6:37:09 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > la nitcion cusku di'e > > >You can "jinvi" based on all sorts of things. Isn't 'conclude' a sort of > >{jalge jinvi}? And 'deduce' and 'abduce' a {javni jinvi}? > > I don't know, could you expand the tanru? Give a couple of > examples? > > mi jivbi'o le du'u do se xajmi kei fo le nu do cmila > I conclude from your laughter that you were amused. > > How does {jalge} enter into it? > As I said, "induction" is about worst word to mess with ("abduction" and "conduction" are actually worse but almost no one uses them). There are, of course, rules fro all kinds of reasoning and all reasoning leads from premises to conclusion (antecedent information to resulting new information). Some rules guarantee that the conclusion is at least as certain as the premises, others don't, a few pretty much guarantee the opposite. Some are mathematically precise, some are fairly precise, some are sloppy below the "rule of thumb" level. My advice is to have a good word for deductively valid arguments and after that just go with reasoning. If it really matter, talk about the paradigm that you are working off of; that probably counts for more than the actual rules most of the time. --part1_21.108b2401.28c18ea4_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 8/31/2001 6:37:09 PM Central Daylight Time,
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


la nitcion cusku di'e

>You can "jinvi" based on all sorts of things. Isn't 'conclude' a sort of
>{jalge jinvi}? And 'deduce' and 'abduce' a {javni jinvi}?

I don't know, could you expand the tanru? Give a couple of
examples?

 mi jivbi'o le du'u do se xajmi kei fo le nu do cmila
 I conclude from your laughter that you were amused.

How does {jalge} enter into it?


As I said, "induction" is about worst word to mess with ("abduction" and
"conduction" are actually worse but almost no one uses them).  There are, of
course, rules fro all kinds of reasoning and all reasoning leads from
premises to conclusion (antecedent information to resulting new information).
 Some rules guarantee that the conclusion is at least as certain as the
premises, others don't, a few pretty much guarantee the opposite.  Some are
mathematically precise, some are fairly precise, some are sloppy below the
"rule of thumb" level.  My advice is to have a good word for deductively
valid arguments and after that just go with reasoning.  If it really matter,
talk about the paradigm that you are working off of; that probably counts for
more than the actual rules most of the time. --part1_21.108b2401.28c18ea4_boundary--