From pycyn@aol.com Mon Sep 10 11:05:24 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 10 Sep 2001 18:05:24 -0000
Received: (qmail 74099 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2001 17:52:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142)
  by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2001 17:52:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d05.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.37)
  by mta3 with SMTP; 10 Sep 2001 17:52:52 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-d05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.14d.c742ad (4012)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:52:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <14d.c742ad.28ce57e6@aol.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 13:52:38 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_14d.c742ad.28ce57e6_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
From: pycyn@aol.com

--part1_14d.c742ad.28ce57e6_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 9/10/2001 12:03:19 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


> 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
>=20
> But as things stand, there is no rival analysis. The set of answers analy=
sis
> is intuitive and attractive, but it is informal, and nobody has shown how=
=20
> it=20
> helps to provide an explicit Q-kauless logical and/or lojban equivalent
>=20

I wasn't aware that there was a need for a qkauless sentence in Lojban that=
=20
was equivalent to one with qkau in it. Can you do an interogative-free=20
sentence in English that is equivalent to one with an interrogative in it?=
=20
Provide general rules for creating same?
I am sorry if the set-of-answers explanation is inadequately formal. I can=
=20
formalize it if need be, but the results will be fairly hairy. It ddoes ha=
ve=20
the advantage of being a coherent and correct single explication of all the=
=20
interrogatives, in which priperties it seems to be unique, for the rival=20
(which may just be a quasi-formal restatement) seems so far to be neither=20
coherent nor correct and to involve a couple of unexplained notions to boot=
.=20=20
It also ignores the role of informal factors in language generally and in=20
questions particularly, apparently.

<#Well, the {makau} {ce'u} is restricted, too -- maybe more so -- since it=
=20
#has to generate *answers*=A0 and not every possible value will apply=20
#(indeed, generally most will not).=A0 Further, unlike the "bound" {ce'u},=
=20
#the restrictions tend to be implicit rather than overt.=A0=20

I think this is incorrect. The extension of ka is the set of all ordered
n-tuples that instantiate the n ce'u=A0 in the ka. So the ce'u are not
restricted.>
You were the one who said the extension of {ce'u} was restricted:
(<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.>)
My point is that it is not and further that, even if it were, the extensi=
on=20
of {makau} is even more restricted -- and implicitly rather than explicitly=
.
As for notions of "the extension of ka," it is not yet clear what role thes=
e=20
are to play, since the various formulations involving them do not yet expla=
in=20
anything and tend to appear irrelevant to the issues at hand. the extensio=
n=20
of a property is, indeed, the set of ordered n-tuples that satisfy the=20
property. But that tells us precious little -- if anything -- about the=20
function of {ka makau broda} (or even {ka ce'u broda}) in a sentence. Nor=
=20
does it seem open to suggesting a general answer which will fit with the us=
e=20
of these expressions in connection with the various selbri with which they=
=20
may occur. The set-of-answers explicaton, together with the range of gadri=
=20
and quantifiers seems able to deal with these issues (and, if worked out in=
=20
the particular formalism and suggests, probably could guide and's version=20
toward adequacy and accuracy).=20=20

<#> 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).>

But woldemarian {ce'u} is a lambda bound variable and {makau} is not=20
obviously so -- and your problem with it suggests that is should not be so =
at=20
all.=20=20



--part1_14d.c742ad.28ce57e6_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR=3D"#ffffff"><FONT SIZE=3D=
2>In a message dated 9/10/2001 12:03:19 PM Central Daylight Time,=20
<BR>arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN=
-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">These objections would ca=
rry a lot more weight if there was a rival=20
<BR>analysis to the Ka Extension analysis. Then you could compare the
<BR>rival analyses as to how well they stand up under those and other
<BR>objections.=20
<BR>
<BR>But as things stand, there is no rival analysis. The set of answers ana=
lysis
<BR>is intuitive and attractive, but it is informal, and nobody has shown h=
ow=20
<BR>it=20
<BR>helps to provide an explicit Q-kauless logical and/or lojban equivalent
<BR>of Qkau sentences</BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>I wasn't aware that there was a need for a qkauless sentence in Lojban =
that=20
<BR>was equivalent to one with qkau in it. &nbsp;Can you do an interogative=
-free=20
<BR>sentence in English that is equivalent to one with an interrogative in =
it?=20
<BR>Provide general rules for creating same?
<BR>I am sorry if the set-of-answers explanation is inadequately formal. &n=
bsp;I can=20
<BR>formalize it if need be, but the results will be fairly hairy. &nbsp;It=
ddoes have=20
<BR>the advantage of being a coherent and correct single explication of all=
the=20
<BR>interrogatives, in which priperties it seems to be unique, for the riva=
l=20
<BR>(which may just be a quasi-formal restatement) seems so far to be neith=
er=20
<BR>coherent nor correct and to involve a couple of unexplained notions to =
boot. &nbsp;
<BR>It also ignores the role of informal factors in language generally and =
in=20
<BR>questions particularly, apparently.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;#Well, the {makau} {ce'u} is restricted, too -- maybe more so -- si=
nce it=20
<BR>#has to generate *answers*=A0 and not every possible value will apply=20
<BR>#(indeed, generally most will not).=A0 Further, unlike the "bound" {ce'=
u},=20
<BR>#the restrictions tend to be implicit rather than overt.=A0=20
<BR>
<BR>I think this is incorrect. The extension of ka is the set of all ordere=
d
<BR>n-tuples that instantiate the n ce'u=A0 in the ka. So the ce'u are not
<BR>restricted.&gt;
<BR>You were the one who said the extension of {ce'u} was restricted:
<BR>(&lt;in {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u ce'u prami ma kau} (in standard
<BR>#&gt; usage), there are two variables: {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u X prami=
Y}.
<BR>#&gt; X is restricted to Dubya and Jeb (do we *have* to use Bushes in o=
ur
<BR>#&gt; exsmples??) and Y ranges freely.&gt;)
<BR> &nbsp;My point is that it is not and further that, even if it were, th=
e extension=20
<BR>of {makau} is even more restricted -- and implicitly rather than explic=
itly.
<BR>As for notions of "the extension of ka," it is not yet clear what role =
these=20
<BR>are to play, since the various formulations involving them do not yet e=
xplain=20
<BR>anything and tend to appear irrelevant to the issues at hand. &nbsp;the=
extension=20
<BR>of a property is, indeed, the set of ordered n-tuples that satisfy the=
=20
<BR>property. &nbsp;But that tells us precious little -- if anything -- abo=
ut the=20
<BR>function of &nbsp;{ka makau broda} (or even {ka ce'u broda}) in a sente=
nce. &nbsp;Nor=20
<BR>does it seem open to suggesting a general answer which will fit with th=
e use=20
<BR>of these expressions in connection with the various selbri with which t=
hey=20
<BR>may occur. &nbsp;The set-of-answers explicaton, together with the range=
of gadri=20
<BR>and quantifiers seems able to deal with these issues (and, if worked ou=
t in=20
<BR>the particular formalism and suggests, probably could guide and's versi=
on=20
<BR>toward adequacy and accuracy). &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>&lt;#&gt; but in {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u ce'u prami ma kau} (in standa=
rd
<BR>#&gt; usage), there are two variables: {ko'u fo'u frica lo du'u X prami=
Y}.
<BR>#&gt; X is restricted to Dubya and Jeb (do we *have* to use Bushes in o=
ur
<BR>#&gt; exsmples??) and Y ranges freely. By my analysis of Q-kau, Y is
<BR>#&gt; underlyingly ce'u -- ordinary unrestricted woldemarian ce'u. So
<BR>#&gt; although I could accept your story that X is a contextually restr=
icted
<BR>#&gt; ce'u, this leaves us with free and contextually restricted ce'u i=
n the
<BR>#&gt; same bridi, and with no way to tell them apart (in logical form).=
&gt;
<BR>
<BR>But woldemarian {ce'u} is a lambda bound variable and {makau} is not=20
<BR>obviously so -- and your problem with it suggests that is should not be=
so at=20
<BR>all. &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_14d.c742ad.28ce57e6_boundary--