From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 04 08:18:52 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 4 Sep 2001 15:18:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 70106 invoked from network); 4 Sep 2001 15:07:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 4 Sep 2001 15:07:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.103) by mta3 with SMTP; 4 Sep 2001 15:07:22 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.10f.49fa9af (3852) for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 11:07:17 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <10f.49fa9af.28c64825@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 11:07:17 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] A serious but ungeneralized new attempt on Q-kau To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_10f.49fa9af.28c64825_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_10f.49fa9af.28c64825_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/4/2001 9:00:03 AM Central Daylight Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: > Is there any reason why the first sumti is "le nu" and the second "lo nu"? > I'd change the first to a plain {ro}: > > {ro nu makau I have for dinner cu some-lujvo-of-{tcini} > lo nu makau is in the fridge} > > Is that right? And you want it to mean "Each nu ... dinner has among its > occurrence-conditions some nu ... fridge". > > And how do we get rid of the makau? Thus? -- > > For every x, for every y that is a ka'e nu I have x for dinner: there is > some > z such that y's occurrence conditions include z's being in the fridge. > > I can't decide whether that's too broad when compared to the English. > At any rate, I *think* it is a reasonable approximation, but fails to > capture the relationship between sets/categories. I ought to be more > constructive and offer an alternative analysis, or at least an explanation > of my reservations, but I've been sitting here for twenty minutes trying > to, when today I have an excess of infinitely more urgent tasks, so this > will have to wait till I have time to think. > Basically, yes. The {le} is just to contrast with the {lo}, but the point is the same with {ro}, I think. And the quantifier rewrite seems right, taking sets as totalities of satisfying items (with a number of hidden clauses here having to do with relevance and preconditions -- not every food would fit since some are not plausible meals, etc.) Now do consider this, which I take to be equivalent, but am blessed if I can prove it: le I have ke'a for dinner ca ce'u cu depends on le contents of the fridge ca ce'uxino (I can't work out the way to otherwise correlate the {ce'u}: all x all y if y is a possible dinner on x then for some z, y's being so is conditioned by z being in the fridge on x. Maybe it only amounts to the same thing, without being strictly equivalent. --part1_10f.49fa9af.28c64825_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 9/4/2001 9:00:03 AM Central Daylight Time,
arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


Is there any reason why the first sumti is "le nu" and the second "lo nu"?
I'd change the first to a plain {ro}:

   {ro nu makau I have for dinner cu some-lujvo-of-{tcini}
    lo nu makau is in the fridge}

Is that right? And you want it to mean "Each nu ... dinner has among its
occurrence-conditions some nu ... fridge".

And how do we get rid of the makau? Thus? --

  For every x, for every y that is a ka'e nu I have x for dinner: there is
some
  z such that y's occurrence conditions include z's being in the fridge.

I can't decide whether that's too broad when compared to the English.
At any rate, I *think* it is a reasonable approximation, but fails to
capture the relationship between sets/categories. I ought to be more
constructive and offer an alternative analysis, or at least an explanation
of my reservations, but I've been sitting here for twenty minutes trying
to, when today I have an excess of infinitely more urgent tasks, so this
will have to wait till I have time to think.


Basically, yes.  The {le} is just to contrast with the {lo}, but the point is
the same with {ro}, I think.  And the quantifier rewrite seems right, taking
sets as totalities of satisfying items (with a number of hidden clauses here
having to do with relevance and preconditions -- not every food would fit
since some are not plausible meals, etc.)

Now do consider this, which I take to be equivalent, but am blessed if I can
prove it:
le I have ke'a for dinner ca ce'u cu depends on le contents of the fridge ca
ce'uxino (I can't work out the way to otherwise correlate the {ce'u}:
all x all y if y is a possible dinner on x then for some z, y's being so is
conditioned by z being in the fridge on x.  
Maybe it only amounts to the same thing, without being strictly equivalent. --part1_10f.49fa9af.28c64825_boundary--