Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Sets and classes

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 03:07:30 +0000

la djorden cusku di'e

> > But does not {na selcmi da} entail {na selcmi}? How could the
> > second one be false if the first one is true?
>
>The first: "x1 is not a set with a member". (kinda clunky; easier
>to translate the equivalent naku da zo'u selcmi da: "It is not
>true that there is an X, such that x1 is a set with member X".
>
>The second: "x1 is not a set."
>
>Very very different, pe'i.

In English yes. But English "set" is not a relationship between
things, it is a simple description.

> > One could ask, does {lo selcmi be no da} belong to {lo'i selcmi}?
> > I don't see how it could.
>
>I don't see how it couldn't.

Then a bicycle, which is {lo selcmi be noda}, is a member of
{lo'i selcmi} too? Is there anything that is not a member?

> > {zilselcmi} should cover all sets though, including the empty one.
>
>I think selcmi should also.

Only if it can be interpreted as {selcmi be zi'o}, which may very
well end up being what happens.

Perhaps the rule should be changed so that unfilled sumti places
should by default be filled with {zi'o} rather than {zo'e}? It
would certainly make some things more intuitive.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com