Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:40:44 EDT

In a message dated 10/2/2001 9:36:36 PM Central Daylight Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> Please read again what I wrote. {makau} stands for the value.
> {le du'u makau broda} does _not_ stand for the value.
> 

Well, I did try to give you a rational position on the issue, even if it is 
one that I think is wrong.

<{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>.

{la djan jinvi [fe] le du'u makau mamta la bil}, not {la djan jinvi FI le 
du'u makau mamta la bil} The phrase is his actual opinion, just as it is his 
actual knowledge in {la djan djuno...} and it is the same phrase with the 
same referent in each case. So, if it is always right in the one case, it is 
in the other also. This is not a plausible position.

<.  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.>

Ignoration elenchi? Just what have we been arguing about? Why the 
explanation of {makau} you just gave, if not dealing with that issue?

<>"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).>

Of course, it also has then in regular function fashion in MEX ({su'i, 
pi'i}). Unnatural and done don't usually conflict in Logic, I've found. So, 
yes, your way of doing it is not too farfetched, except that it won't work 
for indirect questions and thus won't work for functions when indirect 
questions are involved.

<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.>

Well, {le du'u ce'u broda} is an object that is nothing like a proposition.