Subject: Re: sets, masses, &c. (was: RE: [lojban] Re: [jboske] RE: Anything but tautol...

From: [email-masked]
Date: Sat, 2 Mar 2002 21:40:29 EST

In a message dated 3/2/2002 6:36:11 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> A sequence can be either a set or a mass; you just add ordering
> to the set or to the mass.
> 

But sequences seem to have properties (beyond order) that neither of these 
have -- they don't seem to collaborate and yet the individuals seem to still 
function significantly.

<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.>

Well, I always liked the term "team" for masses. But masses pretty clearly 
have cardinalities -- they are derived from sets or somethig therelike, 
which do (I forget if or what the interior quantifer assumed for these things 
is). But masses or groups or whatever are still very different things from 
sets -- and things we talk about much more often. (I suppose that a mass of 
waters would be hard to cardinalize unless you took ups some notion of the 
size of a water, whichj, at least inm principle, you can do in Lojban.)