From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sat Sep 21 22:21:01 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_3); 22 Sep 2002 05:21:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 57952 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2002 05:21:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Sep 2002 05:21:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.26) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Sep 2002 05:21:01 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sat, 21 Sep 2002 22:21:01 -0700 Received: from 200.69.6.24 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 22 Sep 2002 05:21:00 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Sets and classes Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 05:21:00 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 22 Sep 2002 05:21:01.0006 (UTC) FILETIME=[D6E6C6E0:01C261F7] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.69.6.24] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 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