From pycyn@aol.com Tue Sep 11 09:14:21 2001
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 11 Sep 2001 16:14:20 -0000
Received: (qmail 94071 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2001 16:14:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27)
  by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2001 16:14:10 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r09.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.105)
  by mta2 with SMTP; 11 Sep 2001 16:14:01 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-r09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.4.) id r.29.1a8bc704 (3852)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:02:43 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <29.1a8bc704.28cf8fa2@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 12:02:42 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_29.1a8bc704.28cf8fa2_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535
From: pycyn@aol.com

--part1_29.1a8bc704.28cf8fa2_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

In a message dated 9/11/2001 7:52:38 AM Central Daylight Time,=20
arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:


> Evidently I was mistaken to think we were all engaged in the same
> programme of enquiry, then. AFAI am concernced, the aim is to find a
> logical representation for Q-kau sentences. If that turns out to be=20
> reasonably
> elegant, then we could then drop qkau. If it turns out to be a bit clunky
> then we would know what qkau expands to logically.
>=20

I think we are engaged in the same enterprise (at least in part -- I have n=
o=20
desire to do away with Qkau, only to understand it), but from opposite ends=
.=20=20
You appear to think that questions won't be clear until they are formalized=
,=20
I tend to thing they can't be formalized until they are clear. I am also=20
pretty sure that the formalization will be unusably complex, since I can ve=
ry=20
little chance of avoiding moving through several levels of logic and probab=
ly=20
the metalanguage: a good explanation in a scientific study of the langauge=
=20
but not someothing anyone would say.

<Do I need to point out that English does not claim to be a logical languag=
e?
English is not Loglan.>

True, but English is a capable of being logical as Lojban and seem a fair=20
test for whether indirect questions can be logically unfolded in a speakabl=
e=20
human language (which Lojban is not yet provably).

<To avoid you wasting time, I'd better make clear that Jorge defined the
set of answers extensionally (i.e. by listing them all). I don't consider t=
hat
satisfactory.>

No, a list will not do, since the set may very well not be finite, given al=
l=20
the variations possible and acceptable ({xu} questions probably are finite=
=20
sets, but theya re a special case in other ways as well).

<As I said, the analyses aren't rivals. I can't think of a formalization th=
at=20
comes closer to approximating the set of answers analysis than the
extensional analysis does, so in that sense it is a quasi-formal
restatement, and if that's what you think too then your other comments
below are hard to understand.>

I really have tried hard to read And's commentsa quasi formal versions of m=
y=20
markedly less formal ones, but the connection escapes me: I may be reading=
=20
too much -- or the wrong things -- into the notion of extensional and I ju=
st=20
may have a different picture in mind, but each of the items he produces jus=
t=20
comes out wrong any way I try to interpret it (even ignoring known slips of=
=20
the pen).=20=20

<#=A0 <#Well, the {makau} {ce'u} is restricted, too -- maybe more so -- sin=
ce=20
it=20
#=A0 #has to generate *answers*=A0 and not every possible value will apply=
=20
#=A0 #(indeed, generally most will not).=A0 Further, unlike the "bound" {ce=
'u},=A0=20
#=A0 #the restrictions tend to be implicit rather than overt.=A0=20
#
#=A0 I think this is incorrect. The extension of ka is the set of all order=
ed
#=A0 n-tuples that instantiate the n ce'u=A0 in the ka. So the ce'u are not
#=A0 restricted.>
#=A0 You were the one who said the extension of {ce'u} was restricted:
#=A0 (<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.>)

I say "Y ranges freely". Y is "the makau ce'u". You say "the makau ce'u
is restricted too". I say "I think this is incorrect". You reply by quoting
me saying "[the makau ce'u] ranges freely".

Or have the wires got crossed somewhere?>
Apparently. You said X, the overt {ce'u} is restricted. I said that it wa=
s=20
not, although only the values for W and Jeb were sifgnificant. I said Y (t=
he=20
{makau} that you claim is also a {ce'u}) is not restricted. I said that in=
=20
fact it is restricted and implicitly, rather than explicitly. Since you thn=
e=20
talked about {ce'u} I foolishly thought you were talking about {ce'u},=20
forgetting that you now thought {makau} was {ce'u}, and so replied to what=
=20
you said, not to what you apparently meant. We still disagree, but at leas=
t=20
I hope we now agree on what we disagree about.=20=20
The range of the overt {ce'u} is not restricted (I say) even though only tw=
o=20
values are significant for the issue at hand. The range of {makau} (you sa=
y=20
a crypto{ce'u}, with which I disagree) I say is restricted in an informal a=
nd=20
implicit way to those cases which make acceptable answers -- hard to descri=
be=20
in advance, though we recognize failures easily enough. It is not that all=
=20
the possible replacements are there but do not count (as in the overt {ce'u=
}=20
case) but that some replacements are not there at all, since, were they=20
there, they would count, as things are imagined at the moment.=20
I suspect that it is this latter point that is the bone of contention, sinc=
e=20
dealing with it my way means that a complete formalization of questions is=
=20
impossible, except by putting in a very fuzzy predicate about acceptable=20
answers, and And does not like fuzzy predicates, even when they are necessa=
ry.

<You have not shown how/that the extension-of analysis gives inappropriate
meanings that are not equivalent to interrogative or q-kau expressions.=20
Jorge has attempted to do that, though without having convinced me yet.>
Hey, it's your analysis; give me a plausible case of it working, so that I=
=20
can see whether it does or not. Every case so far has come with an attache=
d=20
"but this is not yet quite right," with which I heartily agree.

<. By my analysis of Q-kau, Y is
#=A0 #> underlyingly ce'u -- ordinary unrestricted woldemarian ce'u. So
#=A0 #> although I could accept your story that X is a contextually restric=
ted
#=A0 #> ce'u, this leaves us with free and contextually restricted ce'u in =
the
#=A0 #> same bridi, and with no way to tell them apart (in logical form).>
#
#=A0 But woldemarian {ce'u} is a lambda bound variable and {makau} is not=20
#=A0 obviously so=20

So what are you telling me? That my Insight was not an obvious one...?
;-)

# -- and your problem with it suggests that is should not be so at all.=A0>=
=20

I think your insight is an insight and not an obvious one, but also a wrong=
=20
one. There are a lot of similarities between {ce'u} and {ma} (with or=20
without the {kau}), so that getting a good grip on one helps with the other=
.=20=20
But I don't think they are the same, at least partly because of the other=20
items that go with {ma}, which are not paralleled with {ce'u}. Of course, =
I=20
am also hooked into the set-of-answers explanation (that is what Logic does=
,=20
so I will follow up on it until it clearly doesn't work or I get an answer)=
,=20
which does not fit with the {ce'u} connection either. The fact that workin=
g=20
woith both of these as {ce'u} presents you with a logical problem, suggests=
=20
to me that the assumption you are working with (that they both are {ce'u}) =
is=20
likely wrong. Of course, I see the restricted and unrestricted sorted in t=
he=20
opposite way, but that doesn't change the problem.
There is a problem with {kau} and {ce'u}, having to do with which gets=20
expanded first (i.e. a scope problem, if you will), since some situations=20
seem to favor one expansion, others the other. I have been solving that ad=
=20
hoc so far, but that can't continue, especially if the whole is to be=20
formalized at all.=20








--part1_29.1a8bc704.28cf8fa2_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 9/11/2001 7:52:38 AM 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">Evidently I was mistaken =
to think we were all engaged in the same
<BR>programme of enquiry, then. AFAI am concernced, the aim is to find a
<BR>logical representation for Q-kau sentences. If that turns out to be=20
<BR>reasonably
<BR>elegant, then we could then drop qkau. If it turns out to be a bit clun=
ky
<BR>then we would know what qkau expands to logically.
<BR></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR>
<BR>I think we are engaged in the same enterprise (at least in part -- I ha=
ve no=20
<BR>desire to do away with Qkau, only to understand it), but from opposite =
ends. &nbsp;
<BR>You appear to think that questions won't be clear until they are formal=
ized,=20
<BR>I tend to thing they can't be formalized until they are clear. &nbsp;I =
am also=20
<BR>pretty sure that the formalization will be unusably complex, since I ca=
n very=20
<BR>little chance of avoiding moving through several levels of logic and pr=
obably=20
<BR>the metalanguage: a good explanation in a scientific study of the langa=
uge=20
<BR>but not someothing anyone would say.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;Do I need to point out that English does not claim to be a logical =
language?
<BR>English is not Loglan.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>True, but English is a capable of being logical as Lojban and seem a fa=
ir=20
<BR>test for whether indirect questions can be logically unfolded in a spea=
kable=20
<BR>human language (which Lojban is not yet provably).
<BR>
<BR>&lt;To avoid you wasting time, I'd better make clear that Jorge defined=
the
<BR>set of answers extensionally (i.e. by listing them all). I don't consid=
er that
<BR>satisfactory.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>No, a list will not do, since the set may very well not be finite, give=
n all=20
<BR>the variations possible and acceptable ({xu} questions probably are fin=
ite=20
<BR>sets, but theya re a special case in other ways as well).
<BR>
<BR>&lt;As I said, the analyses aren't rivals. I can't think of a formaliza=
tion that=20
<BR>comes closer to approximating the set of answers analysis than the
<BR>extensional analysis does, so in that sense it is a quasi-formal
<BR>restatement, and if that's what you think too then your other comments
<BR>below are hard to understand.&gt;
<BR>
<BR>I really have tried hard to read And's commentsa quasi formal versions =
of my=20
<BR>markedly less formal ones, but the connection escapes me: I may be read=
ing=20
<BR>too much -- or the wrong things -- into the notion of extensional &nbsp=
;and I just=20
<BR>may have a different picture in mind, but each of the items he produces=
just=20
<BR>comes out wrong any way I try to interpret it (even ignoring known slip=
s of=20
<BR>the pen). &nbsp;
<BR>
<BR>&lt;#=A0 &lt;#Well, the {makau} {ce'u} is restricted, too -- maybe more=
so -- since=20
<BR>it=20
<BR>#=A0 #has to generate *answers*=A0 and not every possible value will ap=
ply=20
<BR>#=A0 #(indeed, generally most will not).=A0 Further, unlike the "bound"=
{ce'u},=A0=20
<BR>#=A0 #the restrictions tend to be implicit rather than overt.=A0=20
<BR>#
<BR>#=A0 I think this is incorrect. The extension of ka is the set of all o=
rdered
<BR>#=A0 n-tuples that instantiate the n ce'u=A0 in the ka. So the ce'u are=
not
<BR>#=A0 restricted.&gt;
<BR>#=A0 You were the one who said the extension of {ce'u} was restricted:
<BR>#=A0 (&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 pram=
i Y}.
<BR># &gt; X is restricted to Dubya and Jeb (do we *have* to use Bushes in =
our
<BR># &gt; exsmples??) and Y ranges freely.&gt;)
<BR>
<BR>I say "Y ranges freely". Y is "the makau ce'u". You say "the makau ce'u
<BR>is restricted too". I say "I think this is incorrect". You reply by quo=
ting
<BR>me saying "[the makau ce'u] ranges freely".
<BR>
<BR>Or have the wires got crossed somewhere?&gt;
<BR>Apparently. &nbsp;You said X, the overt {ce'u} is restricted. &nbsp;I s=
aid that it was=20
<BR>not, although only the values for W and Jeb were sifgnificant. &nbsp;I =
said Y (the=20
<BR>{makau} that you claim is also a {ce'u}) is not restricted. &nbsp;I sai=
d that in=20
<BR>fact it is restricted and implicitly, rather than explicitly. Since you=
thne=20
<BR>talked about {ce'u} I foolishly thought you were talking about {ce'u},=
=20
<BR>forgetting that you now thought {makau} was {ce'u}, and so replied to w=
hat=20
<BR>you said, not to what you apparently meant. &nbsp;We still disagree, bu=
t at least=20
<BR>I hope we now agree on what we disagree about. &nbsp;
<BR>The range of the overt {ce'u} is not restricted (I say) even though onl=
y two=20
<BR>values are significant for the issue at hand. &nbsp;The range of {makau=
} (you say=20
<BR>a crypto{ce'u}, with which I disagree) I say is restricted in an inform=
al and=20
<BR>implicit way to those cases which make acceptable answers -- hard to de=
scribe=20
<BR>in advance, though we recognize failures easily enough. &nbsp;It is not=
that all=20
<BR>the possible replacements are there but do not count (as in the overt {=
ce'u}=20
<BR>case) but that some replacements are not there at all, since, were they=
=20
<BR>there, they would count, as things are imagined at the moment.=20
<BR>I suspect that it is this latter point that is the bone of contention, =
since=20
<BR>dealing with it my way means that a complete formalization of questions=
is=20
<BR>impossible, except by putting in a very fuzzy predicate about acceptabl=
e=20
<BR>answers, and And does not like fuzzy predicates, even when they are nec=
essary.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;You have not shown how/that the extension-of analysis gives inappro=
priate
<BR>meanings that are not equivalent to interrogative or q-kau expressions.=
=20
<BR>Jorge has attempted to do that, though without having convinced me yet.=
&gt;
<BR>Hey, it's your analysis; give me a plausible case of it working, so tha=
t I=20
<BR>can see whether it does or not. &nbsp;Every case so far has come with a=
n attached=20
<BR>"but this is not yet quite right," with which I heartily agree.
<BR>
<BR>&lt;. By my analysis of Q-kau, Y is
<BR>#=A0 #&gt; underlyingly ce'u -- ordinary unrestricted woldemarian ce'u.=
So
<BR>#=A0 #&gt; although I could accept your story that X is a contextually =
restricted
<BR>#=A0 #&gt; ce'u, this leaves us with free and contextually restricted c=
e'u in the
<BR>#=A0 #&gt; same bridi, and with no way to tell them apart (in logical f=
orm).&gt;
<BR>#
<BR>#=A0 But woldemarian {ce'u} is a lambda bound variable and {makau} is n=
ot=20
<BR>#=A0 obviously so=20
<BR>
<BR>So what are you telling me? That my Insight was not an obvious one...?
<BR>;-)
<BR>
<BR># -- and your problem with it suggests that is should not be so at all.=
=A0&gt;=20
<BR>
<BR>I think your insight is an insight and not an obvious one, but also a w=
rong=20
<BR>one. &nbsp;There are a lot of similarities between {ce'u} and {ma} (wit=
h or=20
<BR>without the {kau}), so that getting a good grip on one helps with the o=
ther. &nbsp;
<BR>But I don't think they are the same, at least partly because of the oth=
er=20
<BR>items that go with {ma}, which are not paralleled with {ce'u}. &nbsp;Of=
course, I=20
<BR>am also hooked into the set-of-answers explanation (that is what Logic =
does,=20
<BR>so I will follow up on it until it clearly doesn't work or I get an ans=
wer),=20
<BR>which does not fit with the {ce'u} connection either. &nbsp;The fact th=
at working=20
<BR>woith both of these as {ce'u} presents you with a logical problem, sugg=
ests=20
<BR>to me that the assumption you are working with (that they both are {ce'=
u}) is=20
<BR>likely wrong. &nbsp;Of course, I see the restricted and unrestricted so=
rted in the=20
<BR>opposite way, but that doesn't change the problem.
<BR>There is a problem with {kau} and {ce'u}, having to do with which gets=
=20
<BR>expanded first (i.e. a scope problem, if you will), since some situatio=
ns=20
<BR>seem to favor one expansion, others the other. &nbsp;I have been solvin=
g that ad=20
<BR>hoc so far, but that can't continue, especially if the whole is to be=20
<BR>formalized at all.=20
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>

--part1_29.1a8bc704.28cf8fa2_boundary--