From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Oct 02 19:33:22 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 3 Oct 2001 02:31:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 68943 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 02:31:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by 10.1.1.224 with QMQP; 3 Oct 2001 02:31:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.76) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 02:33:20 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 2 Oct 2001 19:33:19 -0700 Received: from 200.41.247.41 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 02:33:19 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.41] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 02:33:19 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Oct 2001 02:33:19.0979 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3D463B0:01C14BB3] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e > > In my view {makau} stands for the value that the relationship gives > > when the ce'u place is filled. {makau} will take a value from x3 > > for each value taken from x2 and placed in {ce'u}. >Ahah! I have accused you of that view several times and you have almost as >often denied it, swearing that you believed that the answer to a question >was >a proposition not a thing. Please read again what I wrote. {makau} stands for the value. {le du'u makau broda} does _not_ stand for the value. >Now, to make a point you will go back to your >true view. OK. But notice that will make {la djan djuno le du'u makau >mamta >la bil) into perfect nonsense (of a highly forbidden kind: we can't use >{djuno} for people). What? My true view? >Ah, but maybe what you mean is that somehow it is built into the operation >of >indirect questions that they generate the proposition with the right >critter >in for the {kau}. But then, of course, it is impossible to get the answer >wrong, which, alas, goes against our experience: {mi jinvi le du'u maku >mamta >la bil} guarantees I get it right (so only essay questions from now on). I'm afraid I don't understand your point here. {la djan jinvi le du'u makau mamta la bil} (to avoid first person issues) means that John has an opinion as to who is Bill's mother. {makau} there stands for whoever it is that John thinks Bill's mother is. >And's view -- if I have it somewhat right -- at least misses that problem >and >only runs into all the intensionality or interchange problems -- as well as >missing several good answers. The set-of-answers theory (not mine, by the >way) was not arrived at without looking at these kinds of problems but was >rather what people were forced to to deal with them. Sorry, I don't understand how this affects the ce'u-makau case. > > Why would its values be more representative of a function than the > > relationship that gives rise to it? > >"Is mother of," {le ka/du'u ce'u mamta ce'u}, is a relation and, indeed, a >function, as a set of ordered pairs --though the order is reversed here, so >{le du'u ce'u se mamta ce'u} . There are many functions for which it is >somewhat unnatural to think of the corresponding relation (sum, product, >and >the like, for example) Unnatural or not, Lojban thinks of them as such (see sumji, pilji). >and, indeed, the relations can usually be expressed >only by an equation between the function with an argument and its value for >that argument (though one way of doing Logic does take this notion as >basic, >to simplify some kinds of metatheoretical proofs). So my way of doing it is not that far fetched, or are you saying something else? >However, the shift from >relation to function IN PRACTICE does require some indication that the >relation IS a function and the {le ka ce'u... ce'u} does not show that, No, but the pair ce'u-makau does show it. {makau} is whatever value makes the relation hold for a given {ce'u}. >while >value-description form does (well, almost -- Lojban has this singular / >plural problem, as you know, but that can be handled in a variety of ways). >It is that information that makes the value-description form better. It sounds wrong to me. I keep getting the feeling that it's the wrong type. I just can't treat {le broda be ce'u} as an object that is nothing like a broda. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp