From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Sep 11 06:30:20 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 11 Sep 2002 13:30:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 11384 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2002 13:27:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 11 Sep 2002 13:27:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.200) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 11 Sep 2002 13:27:43 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 06:27:43 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:27:42 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: I like chocolate Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2002 13:27:42 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Sep 2002 13:27:43.0328 (UTC) FILETIME=[024C3E00:01C25997] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e > What does this have >to do with what we have been talking about (though I admit I may have lost >the original point after all this time and all the gymnastics that you have >gone through to avoid giving clear answers)? I assure you that I am not doing it on purpose. >But the cases we were discussing were -- I thought -- about getting one >token >of a type out of a set of such tokens -- each of them being in fact an >event >type. Getting tokens out is done with le/lo. I don't think we disagree there. {ro lo broda} gets each token from {lo'i broda}, {ro lo nu broda} gets each token from {lo'i nu broda}. >That still seems to me to be inherently extensional for all that the >extension is made up of intensional objects. Indeed, le/lo are always extensional. On the other hand: {lo'e broda} gets the type from {lo'i broda} and {lo'e nu broda} gets the type from {lo'i nu broda}. For any given set, there is one type. (Of course there are sub-types to go with the respective sub-sets.) >Maybe we >need to set up some terminology so that the various sorts of intensions are >sorted out. Ok. >I don't know what the intension of a set is unless it is the intension of >the >expression whose extension is the set. Calling that the sense or >designation >would take it out of the mass of things going on here. It is an >intensional >object, meaning that various operations -- fronting, quantifier binding, >and >Leibniz's law -- don't apply in expressions referring to it. The way I understand it, fronting, quantifier binding, etc don't apply when you _use_ an intension. When you _talk about_ it, you tokenize it. {le ka ce'u broda} is used to talk about the intension. The intension is in this case a token. With {lo'e broda} I make use of the intension, I don't refer to the intension. >Let's keep >"intension" as a general term for objects which are referred to by >expressions with those properties. Ok. We can say that {broda} is always intensional. But {lo broda} and {lo ka broda} are always extensional (one referring to broda-tokens and the other to ka-tokens). {lo'e broda} is the way I found to keep the intensionality of the broda-type at sumti level. {lo ka broda} maintains the intensionality of {broda}, (it is extensional for ka) but it is the wrong kind of object when we have a place that requires broda-tokens or broda-types. >Types and tokens are another matter entirely, though perhaps practically >related. The lowest level token is a concrete individual at a given >moment. >>From there on up, the type relative to a given token is an abstract and >quasi-intensional object which the relative token manifests or however you >want to put it. And how do you make use of that type? (I don't mean talk about it, but make use of it.) >The two share some properties and these are defining for the >type -- and they typically "have" them in different ways, though the >terminology here is muddier than usual: the token typically is subject of >the >property, the type contains the property (to take what seems to me the >least >confusing pair of possibilities). Yes, you are _talking about_ the type. I'd like to see some uses. >The quasiness of the intensionality comes >about from the fact that some real-world truths affect the issue of what >tokens may fall under a given type: the fact that Jill is Jack's bitchy >sister means that the proposition that Jack's bitchy sister is asleep falls >under the same type as the proposition that Jill is asleep, even though >they >are not the same proposition. I take it that {du'u la djil sipna} is the >predicate satisfied by all the propositions that fall under the same >proximate type as that Jill is asleep does. I suppose that the sense of >that >predicate expression is pretty close to just that, the property of falling >under that proximate type. Ok, as I said before, I am not very clear about the sense of the predicate headed by {du'u}. My instinct says that {lo'i du'u ...} has only one member, and in one-member sets making the type-token distinction is probably hair-splitting. But if {lo'i du'u ...} has many members then {du'u} should behave like any other {broda}. >Why not, in complete generality, use {le du'u ce'u broda} in this case >(assuming that this refers to the sense corresponding to the reference lo'i >broda, i.e., the sense of {broda}, which it ought do)? That is how I would refer to the intension, yes. (I would use {ka} rather than {du'u}, but that's beside the point.) I use {lo'e} not to refer to intensions but to make use of them: ta simlu le ka ce'u sfofa That appears to have the property of being a sofa. ta simsa lo'e sfofa That is like a sofa. I can't use {le ka ce'u sfofa} with {simsa}, because {simsa} compares same level objects, not objects with properties. I can use {le ka ce'u sfofa} with {simlu} because {simlu} is an object-property relationship. >I suppose that >"when I don't want to quantify over the extesion of the set" means "when I >want to talk about the sense of the expression delimiting to the set rather >than to the set itself or its members" It means "when I want to use the sense", not "talk about the sense". mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com