From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Wed Oct 03 09:19:26 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 3 Oct 2001 16:19:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 31907 invoked from network); 3 Oct 2001 16:19:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Oct 2001 16:19:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 3 Oct 2001 16:19:20 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Wed, 3 Oct 2001 16:56:39 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Wed, 03 Oct 2001 17:28:48 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 17:28:25 +0100 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] fancu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta pc: #jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: #> Your assumption is that to refer to a function we must use something #> that looks like one of its values. Is there a justification for that? # Not my assumption, just the usual way of doing it; how would you like to= do=20 #it? A set of ordered pairs (but you hate sets) with the condition that fo= r=20 #each first member there is only one second member? That is not what you h= ave=20 #presented. You have presented a proposition or a function to propositions= ;=20 #that is what {du'u} does, le du'u bridi is by definition something we want= to=20 #call the propsotition that bridi. Putting two variables in makes it a=20 #property, i.e., a function from (in this case) an ordered pair to a=20 #proposition. That is a perfectly good way to talk about taht kind of=20 #property/function, but that is not the kind of function we have here. I=20 #don't have a good third idea at the moment, except of course to use names = and=20 #fill in the last place of {fancu} -- la mamfanc fancu lo'i danlu lo'i fets= i=20 #le nu roda mapti le mamta da. If it is in the nature of functionhood that for every x there is at most on= e f of x (where f =3D a function), then {mamta} seems inappropriate as part of a loc= ution that expresses the mother-of function (e.g. {le mamta be ce'u}) because=20 there is nothing intrinsic to the sense of {mamta} that says that something can have only one mother. {mamta zei fancu} would be a better selbri, or conceivably {pa zei mamta}. I would not be saying this, if Lojban had a way to use {mamta} as an applie= d=20 function rather than only as a predicate. E.g. if *{mamta la djan} function= ed as a sumti that referred to the mother of John. That seems to be how you conceive of {le mamta be la djan}, but really that means "x is such that it is nonveridically said to be the case that x mamta la djan", where x is not bound by a quantifier. #> 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 a= s=20 #often denied it, swearing that you believed that the answer to a question = was=20 #a proposition not a thing. Now, to make a point you will go back to your= =20 #true view. OK.=20=20 I'd be steaming if you'd written that to me!=20 Jorge does believe, contrary to your accusations, that the answer to a ques= tion=20 is a proposition not a thing. He does not say anything in the quoted passag= e=20 that contradicts this. He says that (loosely) {ma kau} stands for a thing. #But notice that will make {la djan djuno le du'u makau mamta=20 #la bil) into perfect nonsense (of a highly forbidden kind: we can't use=20 #{djuno} for people). According to Jorge, "du'u ma kau" is a category of propositions -- a=20 category of answers that replace {ma kau} with a value that makes the proposition true. So {la djan djuno le du'u makau mamta la bil) is not made into perfect nonsense. It's utterly pardonable that you fail to understand Jorge, for for all of u= s there are things that we fail to understand, but it must try the patience if you = fling around these accusations ("Now, to make a point you will go back to your true view"), even when flung at someone so imperturbably equable as Jorge. (Yes, yes, I know that Jorge will say "That's the nature of pc; you = take the rough with the smooth", but one can still hope for a slight smoothing o= f the rough!) #Ah, but maybe what you mean is that somehow it is built into the operation= of=20 #indirect questions that they generate the proposition with the right critt= er=20 #in for the {kau}. But then, of course, it is impossible to get the answer= =20 #wrong, which, alas, goes against our experience: {mi jinvi le du'u maku ma= mta=20 #la bil} guarantees I get it right (so only essay questions from now on).= =20 A good objection, which, it seems to me, applies to any variety of the set = of answers analysis. I don't know what Jorge will say, but I'd suggest that maybe {du'u ma kau} gives the set of all answers (including false ones), but that the semantics of {djuno} means that any answer that is se djuno is perforce true. I'm not sure how that fits with {mi jinvi le du'u ma kau pendo la bil}, but then I'= m not clear about exactly what that is supposed to mean. #And's view -- if I have it somewhat right -- at least misses that problem = and=20 #only runs into all the intensionality or interchange problems -- as well a= s=20 #missing several good answers.=20=20 That's right. [I won't say more, because we have agreed to postpone discussion to another fresh thread.] #> 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=20 #function, as a set of ordered pairs --though the order is reversed here, s= o=20 #{le du'u ce'u se mamta ce'u} . There are many functions for which it is=20 #somewhat unnatural to think of the corresponding relation (sum, product, a= nd=20 #the like, for example) and, indeed, the relations can usually be expressed= =20 #only by an equation between the function with an argument and its value fo= r=20 #that argument (though one way of doing Logic does take this notion as basi= c,=20 #to simplify some kinds of metatheoretical proofs).=20 I think it would be very helpful to use Sum rather than Mamta as an example= . --And.