From xod@sixgirls.org Fri Nov 30 20:49:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: xod@reva.sixgirls.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 1 Dec 2001 04:49:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 46142 invoked from network); 1 Dec 2001 04:49:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Dec 2001 04:49:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO reva.sixgirls.org) (216.27.131.50) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Dec 2001 04:49:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [[UNIX: localhost]]) by reva.sixgirls.org (8.11.6+3.4W/8.11.6) with ESMTP id fB14nRY11712 for ; Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:49:27 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 23:49:26 -0500 (EST) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] The bigness of a set In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20011130233838.04eab590@pop.cais.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Invent Yourself X-Yahoo-Profile: throwing_back_the_apple On Fri, 30 Nov 2001, Bob LeChevalier (lojbab) wrote: > 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. Is my final sentence correct? -- The tao that can be tar(1)ed is not the entire Tao. The path that can be specified is not the Full Path.