From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Mon Sep 10 10:01:01 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 10 Sep 2001 17:01:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 13596 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2001 16:44:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2001 16:44:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2001 16:44:24 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:22:24 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:52:02 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:51:29 +0100 To: lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta >>> 09/10/01 02:08pm >>> #a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes: #> but in {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u ce'u prami ma kau} (in standard #> usage), there are two variables: {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u X prami Y}. #> X is restricted to Dubya and Jeb (do we *have* to use Bushes in our #> exsmples??) and Y ranges freely. By my analysis of Q-kau, Y is #> underlyingly ce'u -- ordinary unrestricted woldemarian ce'u. So #> although I could accept your story that X is a contextually restricted #> ce'u, this leaves us with free and contextually restricted ce'u in the #> same bridi, and with no way to tell them apart (in logical form).=20 [...] #Well, the {makau} {ce'u} is restricted, too -- maybe more so -- since it=20 #has to generate *answers* and not every possible value will apply=20 #(indeed, generally most will not). Further, unlike the "bound" {ce'u},=20 #the restrictions tend to be implicit rather than overt.=20=20 I think this is incorrect. The extension of ka is the set of all ordered n-tuples that instantiate the n ce'u in the ka. So the ce'u are not restricted. #My objects to counting {makau} as {ce'u} are two: 1) it overlooks the=20 #relation to the other interrogatives ({xukau, mokau, ...} which behave in = the=20 #same way, 2) it gives a less useful spin on the interpretation of {makau}= =20 #expressions. Although the difference between a function and a set is nomi= nal=20 #in this case, thinking of a set of answers and pulling items out it, makes= =20 #for clearer discussions than thinking about a function on a function does. These objections would carry a lot more weight if there was a rival=20 analysis to the Ka Extension analysis. Then you could compare the rival analyses as to how well they stand up under those and other objections.=20 But as things stand, there is no rival analysis. The set of answers analysi= s is intuitive and attractive, but it is informal, and nobody has shown how i= t=20 helps to provide an explicit Q-kauless logical and/or lojban equivalent of Qkau sentences. --And.