[Wikineurotic] Wiki page Discussion: Type System changed by selpa'i

["Apache" <apache@digitalkingdom.org>]

The page Discussion: Type System was changed by selpa'i at 15:44 UTC

You can view the page by following this link:
 
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Discussion%3A%20Type%20System

You can view a diff back to the previous version by following this link: 
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-pagehistory.php?page=Discussion%3A%20Type%20System&compare=1&oldver=1&newver=2


***********************************************************
The changes in this version follow below, followed after by the current full page text.
***********************************************************


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
@@ -Lines: 1-4 changed to +Lines: 1-4 @@
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
- I completely agree that Lojban has a type system, and I've treated it that way. In fact, my jvajvo rules rely heavily on sumti types. E.g. the famous {karykla} (without pruning) becomes <br /> x1 klama x2 boi x3 boi x4 boi x5 noi karce x6 boi x7
+ I completely agree that Lojban has a type system, and I've treated it that way. In fact, my jvajvo rules rely heavily on sumti types. E.g. the infamous {karcykla} (without pruning) becomes <br />;:''x1 klama x2 boi x3 boi x4 boi x5 noi karce x6 boi x7''
because karce1's type is "vehicle", as is klama5's. Matching up sumti types is the basis for my jvojva.


+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
@@ -Lines: 12-15 changed to +Lines: 12-25 @@
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+


+ !!lo and masses

+ # Personally, I do not see why lo should not be able to create masses. Having an agnostic-about-masses article saves you the trouble of always deciding whether or not you really mean individuals or masses. You can still be explicit if you want to, using loi for explicit masses and lo with outer quantifier for explicit individuals. What are your reasons for wanting to disallow a lo-mass? What do you do with lo and inner quantifiers which are masses as well? Are you saying lo mu bakni is not a mass? --selpa'i

+ !!Type conversions
+ 
+ # My main problem with your idea is this: Since every sumti-place has an inherent type, it should not be necessary to explicitly state that the sumti you put in it is of that same type. Take traji3 for example. What's the point of saying {ti traji lo ka cizra kei '''lo'i''' dacti poi mi viska ze'a lo mi nunjmive}? traji3 is a set by default, putting in any sumti makes that sumti a set automatically. (traji: x1 is superlative in x2 (ka) among set/range x3)
+ # I should mention that a sumti place can allow for more than one type, often both a dacti and a fasnu, but sometimes different things too.
+ 
+ !!Sets
+ 
+ # You say that simxu1 is a set. I say it can be a set, but can also be a mass. If you limit simxu1 to a set, you make it rather useless. For example, you cannot say {lo simxu be lo ka ce'u tavla ce'u cu klama lo panka} because sets cannot go. Do you agree? If not, what does a set mean to you in the context of Lojban?




***********************************************************
The new page content follows below.
***********************************************************

I completely agree that Lojban has a type system, and I've treated it that way. In fact, my jvajvo rules rely heavily on sumti types. E.g. the infamous {karcykla} (without pruning) becomes 

;:''x1 klama x2 boi x3 boi x4 boi x5 noi karce x6 boi x7''

because karce1's type is "vehicle", as is klama5's. Matching up sumti types is the basis for my jvojva.



With that said, I would like to start a discussion about the implementation of a type system

in Lojban.



Some points I'd like to discuss are:

# lo and masses

# Type conversions

# Sets





!!lo and masses



# Personally, I do not see why lo should not be able to create masses. Having an agnostic-about-masses article saves you the trouble of always deciding whether or not you really mean individuals or masses. You can still be explicit if you want to, using loi for explicit masses and lo with outer quantifier for explicit individuals. What are your reasons for wanting to disallow a lo-mass? What do you do with lo and inner quantifiers which are masses as well? Are you saying lo mu bakni is not a mass? --selpa'i



!!Type conversions



# My main problem with your idea is this: Since every sumti-place has an inherent type, it should not be necessary to explicitly state that the sumti you put in it is of that same type. Take traji3 for example. What's the point of saying {ti traji lo ka cizra kei '''lo'i''' dacti poi mi viska ze'a lo mi nunjmive}? traji3 is a set by default, putting in any sumti makes that sumti a set automatically. (traji: x1 is superlative in x2 (ka) among set/range x3)

# I should mention that a sumti place can allow for more than one type, often both a dacti and a fasnu, but sometimes different things too.



!!Sets



# You say that simxu1 is a set. I say it can be a set, but can also be a mass. If you limit simxu1 to a set, you make it rather useless. For example, you cannot say {lo simxu be lo ka ce'u tavla ce'u cu klama lo panka} because sets cannot go. Do you agree? If not, what does a set mean to you in the context of Lojban?


_______________________________________________
Wikineurotic mailing list
Wikineurotic@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/wikineurotic