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

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 04:13:51 +0000

la djorden cusku di'e

>Saying that containing 0 things is the same as not being a container
>would be pretty broken, though.

If it contains 0 things it is not containing. With Lojban it is
usually more intuitive to think of predicates as verbs.

>We shouldn't just deny that 0 is a
>valid number.

Nobody is denying that.

>su'o da selcmi node ==
>su'o da selcmi naku de ==
>su'o da naku de zo'u da selcmi de ==
>naku roda de zo'u da selcmi de
>It is false that, for all X there is a Y such that X is a set
>containing Y.
>
>i.e., that says exactly what you'd expect from the the first one:
>	su'o da selcmi node
>	there is at least one set which contains nothing.

It says there is at least one thing that is not a selcmi of
anything, but nowhere does it say that that thing is a set.

>I don't see why you can't have it be a selcmi be noda. 0 is as valid
>a number as anything else.

Then would you say too that {lo patfu be noda} is a member of
{lo'i patfu}?

A better gloss for {selcmi} might be "membered thing".
Is the empty set a "membered thing"?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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