[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Lojbab: > 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. You fail to understand that not filling the place is equally correct. Because it is equally correct to not fill the place, it is undesirable to have to fill it. > 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) You seem to be failing to distinguish two things: 1. The problem of stating the cardinality -- of counting the total number. 2. The problem of distinguishing between 1 broda, 2 broda, 3 broda. If you try say how many points are in a line then you need (I learn from Nick) ci'ipa. *But* one can still talk of "three points in a line" -- one can have a set of points such that each point is in a line, and specify the cardinality using a finite natural number. > > > 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 Right. And I'm talking about zi'o not zo'e. If LE tu'o broda is interpreted as LE re broda, is it could be if tu'o were a zo'e, then it would not mean what is intended here. However, you're right that it doesn't have to be a zi'o. A PA that means "a number that neutralizes the distinction between other numbers" would be good. Note that "zo'e" is simply a vague word, it doesn't neutralize the distinction between possible values. So I'm doing what John told me to: I'm finding you partly right. > >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 See above. We need something more specific than zo'e, not just something that invites us to glork a number from context, but rather something that neutralizes the differences between numbers. That is the meaning that is being applied to tu'o in these discussions, I think. At least, it's what I've been meaning. > > > 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) I wanted to know how KS1 would do it. The answer is "lo ci broda". > > > 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] Are you presuming to understand KS1? That's okay, so long as you are clear about when you're talking about SL and when you're talking about KS1. > If Q is unknown, but a specific value exists, Q is mo'ezo'e, however that > number is represented It is represented by le + su'o. --And.