From jjllambias@hotmail.com Wed Mar 1 12:24:00 2000 X-Digest-Num: 380 Message-ID: <44114.380.2118.959273826@eGroups.com> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 12:24:00 PST From: "Jorge Llambias" Subject: Re: Sets etc. la djan cusku di'e >I brought up "ralju" psecisely to mention a "non-mathematical" use of >classes/sets. >There is no reason why there should not be a branch of set theory dealing >with the "most important" members of sets, but it happens there is not. But is there any reason why masses cannot have a most important member? Does this lead to confusion? The point of making distinctions is to avoid ambiguity. Otherwise it is like having gender for nouns, we could do it, but what for? At least Adam's example with {simxu} pointed out an actual difference, but is there a difference in using {ralju} with sets or with masses? >Which leads me to the following challenge, due to Quine. A student at Yale >may belong to zero or more clubs. Some clubs are final clubs. A final >club is defined as "a club such that membership in it precludes membership >in >any other final club". > >Express the definition of "final club" in good Lojban without circularity. I'll give it a shot. Let's use {girzu} for "club", and {mulgirzu} for "final club". This should work: ca'e ro da poi girzu cu mulgirzu I define: Every club is a final club. I think that is the only way that what you called a definition can really define final clubs. co'o mi'e xorxes ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com