From pycyn@aol.com Wed Oct 03 06:40:47 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 3 Oct 2001 13:39:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 21589 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 13:39:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 3 Oct 2001 13:39:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m05.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.8) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 13:40:47 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m05.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.23.12475766 (4230) for ; Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:40:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <23.12475766.28ec6f5c@aol.com> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2001 09:40:44 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_23.12475766.28ec6f5c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_23.12475766.28ec6f5c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/2/2001 9:36:36 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > Please read again what I wrote. {makau} stands for the value. > {le du'u makau broda} does _not_ stand for the value. >=20 Well, I did try to give you a rational position on the issue, even if it is= =20 one that I think is wrong. <{mi jinvi le du'u maku=20 >mamta >la bil}=A0 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=20 du'u makau mamta la bil} The phrase is his actual opinion, just as it is h= is=20 actual knowledge in {la djan djuno...} and it is the same phrase with the=20 same referent in each case. So, if it is always right in the one case, it = is=20 in the other also. This is not a plausible position. <.=A0 The set-of-answers theory (not mine, by the >way) was not arrived at without looking at=A0 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=20 explanation of {makau} you just gave, if not dealing with that issue? <>"Is mother of,"=A0 {le ka/du'u ce'u mamta ce'u}, is a relation and, indee= d, a >function, as a set of ordered pairs --though the order is reversed here, s= o >{le du'u ce'u se mamta ce'u} .=A0 There are many functions for which it is >somewhat unnatural to think of the corresponding relation (sum, product,=20 >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,=20 pi'i}). Unnatural and done don't usually conflict in Logic, I've found. S= o,=20 yes, your way of doing it is not too farfetched, except that it won't work= =20 for indirect questions and thus won't work for functions when indirect=20 questions are involved. Well, {le du'u ce'u broda} is an object that is nothing like a proposition. --part1_23.12475766.28ec6f5c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/2/2001 9:36:36 PM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias= @hotmail.com 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 i= t is one that I think is wrong.

<{mi jinvi le du'u maku=20
>mamta
>la bil}=A0 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 th= e one case, it is in the other also. This is not a plausible position= .

<.=A0 The set-of-answers theory (not mine, by the
>way) was not arrived at without looking at=A0 these kinds of proble= ms 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? W= hy the explanation of {makau} you just gave, if not dealing with that issue= ?

<>"Is mother of,"=A0 {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} .=A0 There are many functions for whic= h it is
>somewhat unnatural to think of the corresponding relation (sum, pro= duct,=20
>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 foun= d. So, yes, your way of doing it is not too farfetched, except that i= t 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 proposit= ion.

--part1_23.12475766.28ec6f5c_boundary--