From a.rosta@ntlworld.com Sat Mar 02 16:34:59 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@ntlworld.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 3 Mar 2002 00:34:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 55803 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2002 00:34:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Mar 2002 00:34:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2002 00:34:57 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.104]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with SMTP id <20020302172151.CGIO305.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 2 Mar 2002 17:21:51 +0000 To: Subject: sets, masses, &c. (was: RE: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautologies Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 17:14:54 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=77248971 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jorge: > la pycyn cusku di'e > > >What makes that a reaasonable > >question? I said that a sequence was neither a mass nor a set (carrying > >logs > >turning up frequently in discussion of masses). > > A set of people cannot carry a log, a mass of people can. > The question is, can a sequence of people carry a log? > > It is a reasonable question, because Lojban provides articles > for sets and for masses, but not for sequences, so sequences > will have to be a subtype of one of those. I have thought > until now that the way to refer to a sequence of cats was > as {le'i mlatu}, but it would be very nice if I was wrong > and the right way is to use {lei mlatu}. Or are you saying > that we have no way in Lojban to refer to a sequence of cats > directly? A sequence can be either a set or a mass; you just add ordering to the set or to the mass. BTW, personally I would prefer to talk of "groups" rather than "masses", when we talk about logcarrying. I find it more intuitive. BTW2, do {lo'i} and {le'i} serve any function that cannot be served by {loi} and {lei}? For example, do {loi} and {lei} have a definite cardinality? If, as the term 'mass' implies, {loi} and {lei} don't a definite cardinality, then I would favour using {le'i} and {lo'i} loglanically to denote groups, that can carry logs and have discrete denumerable members. --And.