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

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 05:21:00 +0000

la djorden cusku di'e

>Sure it isn't containing, but ja'a it is a container.

ta ka'e vasru gi'enai ca'a vasru, right?

>Lojban's
>brivla places claim more than just the relationship to the other
>places.

Maybe so, but the realationship is always claimed, unless you
zi'o-off the other places. (I consider the "more" as part of the
relationship anyway.)

>For example, as we were discussing earlier, putting something
>in x1 of carce claims that it has wheels, even though there is no
>place for the wheels.

Yes, but it also claims that it is for carrying and is propelled.
You can't get away from that.

>si'a putting something in x1 of selcmi claims it is a set in addition
>to claiming it has the member(s) in x2.

Correct. But don't forget the "in addition" part.

>It's just plain unfair to 0 to say that it's not on-par with the other
>numbers here. ;P

The numbers are not the members. Sets cannot have -1 members either,
it is not a matter of being fair to numbers. It's just that there
is no member-set relationship in the absence of members.

> > >We shouldn't just deny that 0 is a
> > >valid number.
> >
> > Nobody is denying that.
>
>If you say that there's a special provision that if a selcmi contains
>0 things it isn't a selcmi, then you are treating 0 special.

No. If the place structure was "x1 is a set with x2 members", then
x2 could be {li no}. But "no members" is not a member. And I'm not
treating 0 special. We don't even need to use 0, just express
everything in terms of {ro} and appropriate negations.

>But my point is that
> da selcmi node
>isn't the same as
> da na selcmi

I agreed with you from the start that it is not the same,
but it entails it (unless you're reading it as {da na selcmi zi'o}).

> > Then would you say too that {lo patfu be noda} is a member of
> > {lo'i patfu}?
>
>I don't know about that one. Maybe, maybe not. It seems that
>x1 of patfu doesn't make an additional claim about x1, like carce
>does about wheels, so maybe not.

You seem to be saying that if it's a relationship in English,
it should be treated as a relationship in Lojban, but if the
gloss is not a relationship in English, it need not be treated
as a relationship in Lojban.

>However I think lo klama be fi noda is a member of lo'i klama, so
>you can use that if you want :)

Use it for what? It is the same case, it can't be a member of
{lo'i klama}. That's why bloated gismu are such a nuisance.
Someone who doesn't move from his house is {lo klama be fi noda},
and should not be a member of {lo'i klama}.

> > A better gloss for {selcmi} might be "membered thing".
> > Is the empty set a "membered thing"?
>
>It is as much as nonempty sets are.

It is as much a "thing with members" as nonempty sets?

Only if {selcmi} can mean {selcmi be zi'o}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx