From pycyn@aol.com Sun Oct 07 17:22:07 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 8 Oct 2001 00:22:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 67306 invoked from network); 8 Oct 2001 00:22:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Oct 2001 00:22:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r10.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.106) by mta2 with SMTP; 8 Oct 2001 00:22:03 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.7.) id r.12a.57116f6 (3984) for ; Sun, 7 Oct 2001 20:21:59 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <12a.57116f6.28f24ba6@aol.com> Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 20:21:58 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: noxemol ce'u To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_12a.57116f6.28f24ba6_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com --part1_12a.57116f6.28f24ba6_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/7/2001 4:24:46 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 rob@twcny.rr.com writes: > On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 03:47:16PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > > The basic problem with {nei} is that it is self-referential, so that it= =20 > > cannot ever succeed in actually refrring to its referent because it=20 > referent=20 > > does not exist until it has succeeded in referring to it. Thus, it is= =20 > the=20 > > whole expression {le nei} that functions as a unit, with the {nei} part= =20 > there=20 > > just as a dummy, not a real referrer at all (but enough of a reality th= at=20 > it=20 > > cannot be used for the first argument in the BRIDI). With counting {le= }=20 > > phrases as bridi in the meaning of the definition, {nei}'s work could b= e=20 > done=20 > > by {no'a} with a slightly less horrific result (though actually the sam= e=20 > > problem can be recreated at every level, including {vo'a} -- this=20 > aprticular=20 > > anaphora technique is theoretically deeply flawed, for all that it work= s=20 > more=20 > > or less in practice).=20=20 >=20 > Oh. That. The problem is that some people refuse to understand recursion. >=20 > The phrase "something such that it sees itself" in English has the same > "problem": "itself" refers to what it is, but how do you know what it is= =20 > until > you know what sees itself? Humans can make the tremendous mental leap to = get > over recursion, however. Note the sarcasm on "tremendous mental leap",=20 > because > figuring out the meaning of {da viska lenei} is only as difficult as=20 > figuring > out what x is in (x =3D 2x - 3). >=20 > In (x =3D 2x - 3), a stupid computer program might decide it can solve it= by > substitution: > x =3D 2(2(2(2(2(2(2(...) - 3) - 3) - 3) - 3) - 3) - 3) - 3 >=20 > Whereas a better computer program or a human with any understanding of=20 > algebra > would know to consider both the "x"'s simultaneously and combine them ont= o=20 > the > left side. >=20 > When you say "does not exist until...", you imply that the sentence is=20 > parsed > in some temporal order. This might be the case if a very basic computer=20 > program > is doing it. However, both mathematics and human thought involve resolvin= g > recursion. You can't resolve one part of the sentence before the other, b= ut=20 > you > can resolve both simultaneously. >=20 Gee, after thirty odd years of teaching Goedel theory, I thought I had a=20 grasp on recursion. Apparently I was wrong, because it has something to d= o=20 with reflexive relations and two terms meaning the same thing and one term= =20 meaning something that only has meaning after the term has a meaning and Go= d=20 knows what all else. What *are* you talking about?=20=20 Lojban IS parsed left to right and has to be resolved grammatically in that= =20 way. Happily, the issue here is semantic/pragmatic -- about the referent o= f=20 {nei}. {nei} stands in place for a BRIDI of which the expression containin= g=20 {nei} is a part. Assuming that the meaning of a phrase is a compound of th= e=20 meanings of its components, the meaning of the BRIDI containing {nei} is=20 composed in part of the meaning of {nei}, which of course, just is the=20 meaning of the expression in which the {nei} occurs. So, in order to get t= he=20 meaning of {nei} you have to already have the meaning of {nei}. thus you c= an=20 never get the meaning of {nei} and so not of the whole BRIDI in which it=20 occurs and so not of the passage in which they occur and so on. This line of argument is, of course, abysmal sophistry. {nei} has no meani= ng=20 outside of {le nei}, {le se nei} and the like and it refers not to meanings= =20 but to forms. To be sure, using {le se nei} or {le te nei} in the second=20 place creates problems somewhat like "the first man on Mars" does now -- or= =20 maybe a bit worse, but no one --except the metaLojbanists, naturally -- is= =20 going to do that; it ruins communication.=20=20 <> <* What follows le is a bridi by your definition, but it is not the=20 specific > ? entry in the parser that we usually refer to when we say "bridi". For > ? example, you can't put {mi klama le zarci} in {le}. {le} creates a brid= i=20 out > ? of the pseudo-bridi which follows it, and takes the x1 out of it. This= =20 bridi > ? is not part of the sentence> >=20 > Yes, it is not a BRIDI because it contains {be} and the rest -- not becau= se=20 > it doesn't have an x1.=A0 {le} doesn't make it a BRIDI out of the bridi t= ail=20 > that follows it nor does it take a BRIDI and make something else out of i= t=20 by=20 > dropping x1 and replacing it with {le} (although that is closer).=A0 The= =20 result=20 > of putting {le} in front of a bridi tail IS a part of thes entence -- whe= re=20 > else would it be?=A0 I think I am missing your point here.=A0 Whose "brid= i" are=20 > you talking about, not mine and not what I understood your to be. Let me try this again with a specific example: {mi viska lo broda be le brode}. (lo is easier to work with than le.) The pseudo-bridi is {broda be le brode} (where did I say anything about not having an x1 making it not a BRIDI? It's not a BRIDI because it's not parse= d=20 as one.) {le} makes this into an actual bridi: {ko'a broda le brode}. {ko'a broda le brode} never becomes part of the sentence. It's a bit abstract, but if you can't understand this concept we're at an impasse. The imaginary {ko'a} does become part of the sentence, as the referent of {= lo broda be le brode}. The result is that the sentence is {mi viska ko'a}, with that ko'a not real= ly there, but referring to the same thing as {ko'a broda le brode}. I could do this without constructing a separate bridi, using poi and voi, b= ut=20 I assume that's what And is doing which you object to.> Nice, albeit incomplete, transformational grammar explanation of {lo broda = be=20 le broda}. So, in fact you were not talking about either bridi or BRIDI bu= t=20 something that has no reality at all in Lojban grammar. A word of warning= =20 would have been nice: "makes this into" and the like lead me to look for=20 these things which, as it turns out, are nowhere at all, but merely=20 theoretical figments of some grammarian's imagination -- albeit handy ones= =20 for many purposes. [Since I could read Logic and knew Adjukewicz arithmetic= ,=20 I did much of the teaching at the first seminars on linguistic theory at=20 UCLA, until they bought a pro.] Of course, I know how all this goes -- it w= as=20 what I meant by reminding And that {le broda be le brode} is a bridi (indee= d=20 a BRIDI). I am still a little puzzled by how an imaginary {ko'a} becomes a= =20 part of a real sentence,or is the reference, in either sense, of anything. = =20 But, at least I see what you were trying to say, and I agree with it=20 wholeheartedly. Thanks for the support. Notice, by the way, that, according to you last time (and immediately below= )=20 {poi} also creeates a separate BRIDI. I don't object to And doing this=20 (indeed, I want to insist on); I just object to his tarting this trivial=20 maneuver up as some marvelous thing that somehow proves that {le mamta be=20 ce'u} is unacceptable. Since it is merely definitional, I don't see that i= t=20 proves anyhting -- except that {ce'u} is not a sumti in the construction,=20 which we all knew all along, or should ahve. anyhow -- is that he makes the containing "sumti" disappear=A0 but exactl= y=20 > replaces it with a new sumti which contains=A0 a BRIDI and the same inter= nal=20 > sumti and such that the whole means the same (officially) -- and this=20 somehow=20 > is to prove that the internal sumti, which now is clearly at a different= =20 > level from the sumti it is contained in was previously at the same level = as=20 > the sumti it was contained in.=A0 I just don't see how it follows, but in= any=20 > case the transformation that is done is trivial and has no bearing on the= =20 > issue at hand. The conversation between you and And soared to great levels of abstraction.= =20 You two couldn't understand each other, so I rather doubt I could. If that is in fact what And meant, it's nonsense. A sumti does not contain = a BRIDI. It might contain words which would be a BRIDI if they weren't in a sumti, but since they are in a sumti, they aren't a BRIDI.> I make no guarantees about what And means or what he will say he means next= .=20=20 But so far as I can see, your comments are either not relevant to And's poi= nt=20 (if you are talking about {le broda be le brode} where he also insists ther= e=20 is no BRIDI) or contradict yourself (if about {ko'a poi broda le brode}=20 which And insists does contain a BRIDI and which you, too, seem to have sai= d=20 contains one -- and, indeed, I insist it contains one). --part1_12a.57116f6.28f24ba6_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 10/7/2001 4:24:46 PM Central Daylight Time, rob@twcny.= rr.com writes:


On Sun, Oct 07, 2001 at 0= 3:47:16PM -0400, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
> The basic problem with {nei} is that it is self-referential, so th= at it=20
> cannot ever succeed in actually refrring to its referent because i= t referent=20
> does not exist until it has succeeded in referring to it.  Th= us, it is the=20
> whole expression {le nei} that functions as a unit, with the {nei}= part there=20
> just as a dummy, not a real referrer at all (but enough of a reali= ty that it=20
> cannot be used for the first argument in the BRIDI).  With co= unting {le}=20
> phrases as bridi in the meaning of the definition, {nei}'s work co= uld be done=20
> by {no'a} with a slightly less horrific result (though actually th= e same=20
> problem can be recreated at every level, including {vo'a} -- this = aprticular=20
> anaphora technique is theoretically deeply flawed, for all that it= works more=20
> or less in practice).  

Oh. That. The problem is that some people refuse to understand recursio= n.

The phrase "something such that it sees itself" in English has the same
"problem": "itself" refers to what it is, but how do you know what it i= s until
you know what sees itself? Humans can make the tremendous mental leap t= o get
over recursion, however. Note the sarcasm on "tremendous mental leap", = because
figuring out the meaning of {da viska lenei} is only as difficult as fi= guring
out what x is in (x =3D 2x - 3).

In (x =3D 2x - 3), a stupid computer program might decide it can solve = it by
substitution:
x =3D 2(2(2(2(2(2(2(...) - 3) - 3) - 3) - 3) - 3) - 3) - 3

Whereas a better computer program or a human with any understanding of = algebra
would know to consider both the "x"'s simultaneously and combine them o= nto the
left side.

When you say "does not exist until...", you imply that the sentence is = parsed
in some temporal order. This might be the case if a very basic computer= program
is doing it. However, both mathematics and human thought involve resolv= ing
recursion. You can't resolve one part of the sentence before the other,= but you
can resolve both simultaneously.


Gee, after thirty odd years of teaching Goedel theory, I thought I had = a grasp on recursion.  Apparently I was wrong,  because it has so= mething to do with reflexive relations and two terms meaning the same thing= and one term meaning something that only has meaning after the term has a = meaning and God knows what all else.
What *are* you talking about?  
Lojban IS parsed left to right and has to be resolved grammatically in = that way.  Happily, the issue here is semantic/pragmatic -- about the = referent of {nei}.  {nei} stands in place for a BRIDI of which the exp= ression containing {nei} is a part.  Assuming that the meaning of a ph= rase is a compound of the meanings of its components, the meaning of the BR= IDI containing {nei} is composed in part of the meaning of {nei}, which of = course, just is the meaning of the expression in which the {nei} occurs. &n= bsp;So, in order to get the meaning of {nei} you have to already have the m= eaning of {nei}.  thus you can never get the meaning of {nei} and so n= ot of the whole BRIDI in which it occurs and so not of the passage in which= they occur and so on.
This line of argument is, of course, abysmal sophistry.  {nei} has= no meaning outside of {le nei}, {le se nei} and the like and it refers not= to meanings but to forms.  To be sure, using {le se nei} or {le te ne= i} in the second place creates problems somewhat like "the first man on Mar= s" does now -- or maybe a bit worse, but no one --except the metaLojbanists= , naturally -- is going to do that; it ruins communication.  

<> <* What follows le is a bridi by your definition, but it i= s not the specific
> ? entry in the parser that we usually refer to when we say "bridi"= . For
> ? example, you can't put {mi klama le zarci} in {le}. {le} creates= a bridi out
> ? of the pseudo-bridi which follows it, and takes the x1 out of it= . This bridi
> ? is not part of the sentence>
>=20
> Yes, it is not a BRIDI because it contains {be} and the rest -- no= t because=20
> it doesn't have an x1.=A0 {le} doesn't make it a BRIDI out of the = bridi tail=20
> that follows it nor does it take a BRIDI and make something else o= ut of it by=20
> dropping x1 and replacing it with {le} (although that is closer).= =A0 The result=20
> of putting {le} in front of a bridi tail IS a part of thes entence= -- where=20
> else would it be?=A0 I think I am missing your point here.=A0 Whos= e "bridi" are=20
> you talking about, not mine and not what I understood your to be.

Let me try this again with a specific example:
{mi viska lo broda be le brode}. (lo is easier to work with than le.)
The pseudo-bridi is {broda be le brode} (where did I say anything about= not
having an x1 making it not a BRIDI? It's not a BRIDI because it's not p= arsed as
one.)
{le} makes this into an actual bridi: {ko'a broda le brode}. {ko'a brod= a le
brode} never becomes part of the sentence. It's a bit abstract, but if = you
can't understand this concept we're at an impasse.
The imaginary {ko'a} does become part of the sentence, as the referent = of {lo
broda be le brode}.

The result is that the sentence is {mi viska ko'a}, with that ko'a not = really
there, but referring to the same thing as {ko'a broda le brode}.

I could do this without constructing a separate bridi, using poi and vo= i, but I
assume that's what And is doing which you object to.>

Nice, albeit incomplete, transformational grammar explanation of {lo br= oda be le broda}.  So, in fact you were not talking about either bridi= or BRIDI but something that has no reality at all in Lojban grammar.  = ;A word of warning would have been nice:  "makes this into" and the li= ke lead me to look for these things which, as it turns out, are nowhere at = all, but merely theoretical figments of some grammarian's imagination -- al= beit handy ones for many purposes. [Since I could read Logic and knew Adjuk= ewicz arithmetic, I did much of the teaching at the first seminars on lingu= istic theory at UCLA, until they bought a pro.] Of course, I know how all t= his goes -- it was what I meant by reminding And that {le broda be le brode= } is a bridi (indeed a BRIDI).  I am still a little puzzled by how an = imaginary {ko'a} becomes a part of a real sentence,or is the reference, in = either sense, of anything.  But, at least I see what you were trying t= o say, and I agree with it wholeheartedly.  Thanks for the support.
Notice, by the way, that, according to you last time (and immediately b= elow) {poi} also creeates a separate BRIDI.  I don't object to And doi= ng this (indeed, I want to insist on); I just object to his tarting this tr= ivial maneuver up as some marvelous thing that somehow proves that {le mamt= a be ce'u} is unacceptable.  Since it is merely definitional, I don't = see that it proves anyhting -- except that {ce'u} is not a sumti in the con= struction, which we all knew all along, or should ahve.

<Notice that what ahppens in And's rule -- one version=20
> anyhow -- is that he makes the containing "sumti" disappear=A0 but= exactly=20
> replaces it with a new sumti which contains=A0 a BRIDI and the sam= e internal=20
> sumti and such that the whole means the same (officially) -- and t= his somehow=20
> is to prove that the internal sumti, which now is clearly at a dif= ferent=20
> level from the sumti it is contained in was previously at the same= level as=20
> the sumti it was contained in.=A0 I just don't see how it follows,= but in any=20
> case the transformation that is done is trivial and has no bearing= on the=20
> issue at hand.

The conversation between you and And soared to great levels of abstract= ion. You
two couldn't understand each other, so I rather doubt I could.

If that is in fact what And meant, it's nonsense. A sumti does not cont= ain a
BRIDI. It might contain words which would be a BRIDI if they weren't in= a
sumti, but since they are in a sumti, they aren't a BRIDI.>

I make no guarantees about what And means or what he will say he means = next.  But so far as I can see, your comments are either not relevant = to And's point (if you are talking about {le broda be le brode} where he al= so insists there is no BRIDI) or contradict yourself  (if about {ko'a = poi broda le brode} which And insists does contain a BRIDI and which you, t= oo, seem to have said contains one -- and, indeed, I insist it contains one= ).



--part1_12a.57116f6.28f24ba6_boundary--