From pycyn@aol.com Sat Jul 06 08:55:04 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_7_4); 6 Jul 2002 15:55:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 8848 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 15:55:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Jul 2002 15:55:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 15:55:03 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.21.) id r.3d.20bb05ba (3949) for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:54:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3d.20bb05ba.2a586cd1@aol.com> Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:54:57 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] pro-sumti question To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_3d.20bb05ba.2a586cd1_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_3d.20bb05ba.2a586cd1_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/6/2002 8:46:47 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > la greg cusku di'e > > >A mass > >should be more than the sum of it's elements. I'm sure there must be some > >relation for which {lei broda cu brode .ijenai su'o le broda cu brode} is > >true. > xorxes example works fine, but what does this particular sentence have to do with anything (greg's note never got here)? "sum" is a handy term of art because it is used already for two major cases and often informally for several others, but it is not something that requires all or any of the members to have the properties of the mass. In fact, one of the sum senses almost guarantees that this won't happen the weight case. xorxes: "Sum" is left pretty vague as a promissory note to fill it in, though xorxes seems sure that it cannot be. I was trying to think of a case of the sort he suggests here, but nothing natural came to mind -- orverlapping is not something things do well. It works nicely with sets, of course, but masses of sets are not very pleasant to contemplate. --part1_3d.20bb05ba.2a586cd1_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 7/6/2002 8:46:47 AM Central Daylight Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


la greg cusku di'e

>A mass
>should be more than the sum of it's elements. I'm sure there must be some
>relation for which {lei broda cu brode .ijenai su'o le broda cu brode} is
>true.

xorxes example works fine, but what does this particular sentence have to do with anything (greg's note never got here)?  "sum" is a handy term of art because it is used already for two major cases and often informally for several others, but it is not
something that requires all or any of the members to have the properties of the mass.
In fact, one of the sum senses almost guarantees that this won't happen the weight case.

xorxes:
<But it can also be that the mass is somehow less than the sum of
it's elements, when there is some kind of overlap among the elements.
It all depends on how you define the sum, of course.>

"Sum" is left pretty vague as a promissory note to fill it in, though xorxes seems sure that it cannot be.  I was trying to think of a case of the sort he suggests here, but nothing natural came to mind -- orverlapping is not something things do well.  It works nicely with sets, of course, but masses of sets are not very pleasant to contemplate.




 --part1_3d.20bb05ba.2a586cd1_boundary--