From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Sep 10 15:40:02 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_0_1); 10 Sep 2002 22:40:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 52646 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 22:40:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Sep 2002 22:40:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.138) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 22:40:02 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:40:02 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:40:01 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: Fwd: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 22:40:01 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Sep 2002 22:40:02.0163 (UTC) FILETIME=[002B6C30:01C2591B] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e ><< > > From my point of view quantification is the key issue here. > >> >And I still don't see why: if you have a set of things of any sort, then >you >can quantify over the members of that set. What does the fact that the set >contains abstract things have to do with denying this triviality? Nothing, but I think you're mixing levels here. Given a set (of whatever elements: concrete, abstract, real, imaginary, whatever you like), given that set, you can quantify over its extension, or you can use its intension (the intension that defines the set, not the particular intensions that might be involved in otherwise defining any of the members). To use the intension of that set and not its extension, I can't have a quantifier running over that set, no matter what type of things its elements are. >But, why should the quantifier not be there? Because the quantifier immediately brings forward the extension. >Even if ythe set has only one >member, quantification is still meaningful -- indeed, even if the set has >no >members. But the sets we're talking about have many members in general: a set of chocolates, a set of events of eating. I don't want to quantify over the extensions of those sets, I want to use the intensions. >It surely is meaningful when the set has an indefinite number of >members. We agree then. In those cases, I use {lo'e} when I don't want to quantify over the extension of the set. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com