[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 09:31 PM 1/11/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
Nick: > xod was wrong about tu'o > > There are three reasons you might count something as tu'o > > First, there's only 0 or 1 of them. Dumb reason. Something like this > may have been attempted with ledu'u I'm not sure what you have in mind here, but if the reference to ledu'u is a clue then the argument was that when in the mass of all worlds there is exactly one of something, it is undesirable (for reasons that I can spell out yet again, if necessary) to *have* to quantifier over all broda in order to refer to the one broda. So this would really by like your third case.
I disagree. zi'o applies when there is no value that fills in the place, not merely when it is undesirable to fill in the place, but a correct value does exist. The latter is clearly part of zo'e and therefore not zi'o (because they are mutually exclusive by the discussion of CLL).
> The set of natural numbers has cardinality aleph-0 > The set of real numbers has a cardinality, and it is aleph-1 > That means that there are proper subsets of real numbers that are > countable: N is a subset of R. It also means it is feasible to speak of > 'all' over a transfinite set. It's just that the set is not countable Bearing in mind that I know next to no maths, so am probably talking out of my netherparts, I am guessing that 'all' means 'every member of' or 'every subset of', and not 'everything that is a set of real numbers'.
And and I finally have something is common! We each fail to know some field relevant to the discussion enough so that we make ourselves look like we don't know what we are talking about, and it is indeed correct that we don't know what we are talking about %^)
But {tu'o broda} was to be used where the contrast pa/re/ci/../ro
made no sense -- how do you count something that has no boundaries
or fixed size? You can't. Can mathematicians?
How do you count the points of a line, which have no boundaries and no fixed size, and you cannot see them? You define them in a way such that their count has meaning and then try to count them. In the case of points, you define the concept of infinitesimals, and the count is some transfinite number (some kind of ci'i - there is more than one kind)
If 'broda' were 'bit of substance' rather than just 'substance', then we could quantify.
You can always infinitesimalize a substance, even if the bits cannot be pointed to.
> We can choose to restrict ro to countably many things, but I doubt we
> should. So we're still stuck, if so. In the following, I'll use not
> tu'o as an inner quantifier, but ci'ino and ci'ipa for aleph-0 and
> aleph-1. I retain tu'o for its true meaning (see below.)
I have no idea what the penult para means, but looking at the last
para, we weren't restricting ro to countably many things. We were
restricting ro to the cardinality of sets of countable things.
{(LE) tu'o broda} was understood to mean that it was meaningless to
try to distinguish between pa/re/ci broda.
That sounds like an "it doesn't matter what value" not "there is no value". The latter is zi'o. The former is zo'e but could be defined as a particular flavor of zo'e just as zu'i is.
That said, ci'i makes sense on the 'bit of broda' interpretation. > The cardinality of collectives is the number of possible subsets of a > set. If the set is countably infinite, the number of subsets is 2 ** > aleph-0 = aleph-0. I am limiting myself to collectives of atoms; if I > allow collectives of collectives of collectives, I may end up > transinfinite again, but I'll treat those as not basic ontologically > > The cardinality of Q, the rational numbers, is also aleph-0. And I see > why And wants Q to fraction-quantify collectives, and R to > fractional-quantify substances. It may be too late for Standard Lojban > to demand this though I thought I was proposing Q for both collectives/sets and substances? Q set/collective = Q members of. Q substance = Q bits of.
All variations on ci'i including ones we haven't figured out how to say (though ci'i itself seems appropriate), are still within zo'e and not zi'o.
> So.. > > pa lo ci'ino Atom > tu'o lo ci'ino Kind of Atom So how do we say the equivalent of SL "lo ci broda"?
lo ci broda means that there exists in all the universe 3 things which broda (ci=ro), and you are taking at least one of them (the su'o default outer quantifier).
> pisu'o loi ci'ino = > su'o fi'u ro loi ci'ino Collective of Individual > tu'o loi ci'ino = Kind of Collective of Individual If "pi mu loi ci'i no" gives you the collective of one in every 2 people, how do you get the distriutive? How do you get "a certain Q of". This question applies to all your examples.
If Q is known, le Q [lVV broda]If Q is unknown, but a specific value exists, Q is mo'ezo'e, however that number is represented.
-- lojbab lojbab@hidden.email Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org