[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
la and cusku di'e
> > I don't disagree with anything you've said (except that it needs > > to be clarified, IMO, that .9 entails "not (wholly) true"). > > It all depends on how you define NOT for continuous truth values. I don't see why it depends on this. If pi ro = (wholly) true, then .9 entails "not pi ro".
If you're working with binary logic, yes. It either is the case that .9, or it is not the case. If you allow continuous truth values then the claim "it is .9 true" itself will have a fractional truth value in turn, and it will probably not entail "not piro" with truth value pi ro.
> A value of .9 is not a value of 1 just as it is not a value of .8. Yes. I think "not .9" should be true if the value is .8 or ro or 0.
Ok, so you are using binary logic applied to claims with these modifiers.
> But we probably want a softer "NOT" for continuous truth values.
> For example, a function that maps value x to value 1-x.
> Then {.9 <bridi>} does not entail {not 1 <bridi>} = {0 <bridi>}.
to'e?
No, I don't think this has to do with {to'e}, that changes the
predicate word. As pc pointed out, I was thinking of truth
values in (0,1). I don't really like talking of truth values
greater than 1, I prefer to use a mapping into the open (0,1)
interval. But a system that goes from 0 to 1, then keeps going,
and calls "true" all the values above 1 is too weird for me.
In a (0,1) range there is no "true" and no "false". Instead of
that there are infinitely many values, which can be called more
or less true.
> Yes, I agree. I would say almost any proposition is susceptible
> of both treatments. {ko'a clani} can also be seen as a yes/no
> proposition in some contexts. I'm saying that whichever kind
> of modifier we use determines how we're treating the proposition
> for the purposes of truth evaluation.
Fair enough. I wonder if there will be ambiguous cases, when
pi PA values are ambiguous between (a) how much p is happening,
and (b) the extent to which p satisfies the threshold criteria
for being true at all. For example, {ko'a ja'a xi pi bi melbi}
might mean that ko'a's beauty measures .8 in millihelens, or
it might mean that ko'a is not quite beautiful but is close to
the threshold of beauty. I'd prefer to stick with the latter
reading only.
You mean something like "almost beautiful"? I think I'd prefer
{ko'a na xi pi re melbi} for the "not beautiful" side.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com