From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Jan 30 18:28:59 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 31 Jan 2002 02:28:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 3445 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2002 02:28:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 31 Jan 2002 02:28:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.53) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 31 Jan 2002 02:28:58 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 18:28:58 -0800 Received: from 200.69.6.10 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 31 Jan 2002 02:28:57 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: UI for 'possible' (was: Re: [lojban] Bible translation style question) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 02:28:57 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jan 2002 02:28:58.0178 (UTC) FILETIME=[095ABA20:01C1A9FF] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.10] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la xod cusku di'e > > > Why ru'e and not cu'i? > > > > Basically because it's 'ru'e' that glossed as 'possibility' in the > > lojban version of trivalent logic > > (http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?Three-value%20Logic), but other > > than that 'cu'i' is just as good, if not better. > >I prefer cu'i, for cu'i has no negative, it being in the center of the >scale, whereas ru'e is opposed by ru'enai. There was a reason to choose {ru'e} though, as {cu'i} was needed for something else. The system was: cai (1,-1,-1) sai (1,0,0) ru'e (1,1,-1) cu'i (0,1,-1) nai (-1,0,1) and the operator (0,1,-1) is essential in order to be able to have a complete system. You need either that one or (-1,1,0). To remind us what we're talking about: In two-valued logic there are only four unary operators, which in lojban can be represented by: ja'a (1,-1) na (-1,1) xukau (1,1) na xukau (-1,-1) This means that {ja'a} returns true from true and false from false, {na} returns false from true and true from false, {xukau} returns true from either true or false, and whatever the contradiction operator is it always returns false. In three-valued logic, there are 27 unary operators. We don't have 27 words for them, but fortunately we can get them from combinations of up to three of the above six. (In two-value the combination {nana} for example is equivalent to {ja'a}.) The reason I chose {ru'e} for (1,1,-1) (which means that any value but false gives true, and false gives false) is that it is the weakest of the three affirmations that differ minimally from the transparent operator (1,0,-1). The three are: cai (1,-1,-1) necessarily sai (1,0,0) probably ru'e (1,1,-1) possibly The truly most natural operator for {cu'i} would probably be (0,0,0) in any case, total non-commital, but we need something for (0,1,-1) or for (-1,1,0) or else we can't generate the 27 to have a full system, so I assigned (0,1,-1) to {cu'i}, which gives neutral for true and true for the neutral value. I think that's a good enough "neutral". "Possible" is not "neutral". In terms of probablity for example, any value but zero gives possible, only zero gives impossible. Something like (1,1,-1). mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com