From lojbab@lojban.org Fri Nov 30 20:41:21 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 1 Dec 2001 04:41:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 4335 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2001 04:41:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2001 04:41:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-2.cais.net) (205.252.14.72) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2001 04:41:21 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (43.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.43]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fB14fHi70623 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:41:17 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011130233838.04eab590@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:41:05 -0500 To: Subject: Re: [lojban] The bigness of a set In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 08:51 PM 11/30/01 -0500, Invent Yourself wrote: >Sets have certain properties, like cardinality, membership, and inclusion. >Physical size is not one of them. Therefore how do we deal with a >statement like the canonical "lo'i ratcu cu barda"? It appears that, in >context, a reference to a set is being replaced by a reference to the >cardinality of the set. I think this is true for all instances of "large"/"barda" - we are saying that some unspecified dimension(s) of the referent are more than an in mind standard. In the case of sets, we happen to know what the dimension is most likely to be. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org