[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
At 10:56 AM 1/13/03 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Robert LeChevalier scripsit:> For uncountable extremely large finite, we have so'a, recalling that "so'i"> means "many", and so'e has to be enough larger as to make "many" seem too > small, and so'a larger still in the same sense. All of the so'V words are > uncountable numbers with varying degrees of size attached, and the use of> so'u as a standard quantifier shows that they can convey some important senses.This is a different sense of "uncountable" than we are using here. Sets are called *countable* if it is possible to put their members in 1-1 correspondence with the natural numbers or a subset of them; *uncountable* otherwise. All finite sets are countable; some infinite sets are countable, some uncountable. You are using "uncountable" in the sense of "vague".
I realized when I read Nick's long post to me on transfinites that I had forgotten about countable/uncountable infinities.
Unfortunately I still remain grounded in a real world where there seems to be no real infinities, only mathematical ones. USUALLY, Lojban talks about the real world where the largest proper inner quantifier is a countable sub-infinity. In discussions of mathematics we need to be able to go into infinities, but I'm not sure we should be designing the language contrary to quantum/atomic theory.
We may have situations where metaphysical assumptions are contradictory, in which case Lojban cannot remain metaphysically neutral - we can at best have a mark that changes the metaphysics from some standard assumptions. (Do I sense that we've returned to the x4 of djuno yet again? Let's not go there.)
lojbab -- 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