WikiDiscuss

Posted by rlpowell on Wed 07 of Dec, 2005 03:43 GMT posts: 14214

From clsn:

Why not just "bliku"? There's only one kind of block under discussion anyway.

Also, I think that should be "...vo plita kubli be li re bei li ci vu'o .e pa kevna kubli be li re bei li vo". Otherwise the .e joins to li ci. --clsn

Posted by rlpowell on Wed 07 of Dec, 2005 03:56 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 07:43:31PM -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org
wrote:
> Re: Zendo In Lojban
> >From clsn:
>
> Why not just "bliku"? There's only one kind of block under
> discussion anyway.

Because Zendo pieces aren't three dimensional; they are about 2.1 by
my guess.

> Also, I think that should be "...vo plita kubli be li re bei li ci
> vu'o .e pa kevna kubli be li re bei li vo". Otherwise the .e
> joins to li ci. --clsn

Wow. I had no idea "li pa .e ci" is a mex. WTF does it mean?

Isn't "be'o" clearer than vu'o?

-Robin

On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:

> Because Zendo pieces aren't three dimensional; they are about 2.1 by
> my guess.

They have fractal dimension?!

They might be hollow, but they are very much three dimensional.

> Wow. I had no idea "li pa .e ci" is a mex. WTF does it mean?

I guess it could mean something like 0001 AND 0011 = 0001

> Isn't "be'o" clearer than vu'o?

Correct, even. {vu'o} is only to attach a relative clause.

BTW, I think {gunma} means "consists of", not "contains". The
x2 of gunma are all the constituents of x1. There's {selpau}
or {selcmi} or {vasru} for "contains".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Posted by rlpowell on Wed 07 of Dec, 2005 13:07 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:28:43AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
> > Because Zendo pieces aren't three dimensional; they are about
> > 2.1 by my guess.
>
> They have fractal dimension?!

That was my intention, yes.

> They might be hollow, but they are very much three dimensional.

A cut down one side, and they can be rolled to completely flat. Not
2-dimensionally flat, of course, but still.

> > Wow. I had no idea "li pa .e ci" is a mex. WTF does it mean?
>
> I guess it could mean something like 0001 AND 0011 = 0001

jcowan says that it's just == li pa .e li ci

> BTW, I think {gunma} means "consists of", not "contains". The x2
> of gunma are all the constituents of x1. There's {selpau} or
> {selcmi} or {vasru} for "contains".

"contains" in Zendo doesn't really mean "contains"; gunma was
suggested by kpreid, and it's really much better.

-Robin

Posted by rlpowell on Wed 07 of Dec, 2005 13:25 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 05:07:19AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:28:43AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Because Zendo pieces aren't three dimensional; they are about
> > > 2.1 by my guess.
> >
> > They have fractal dimension?!
>
> That was my intention, yes.

It should be noted that I've never really formally understood
fractionaly dimensions, but I've read informal things that have said
things like "a field strewn with boulders can be considered (taking
the field as 2-d) to be somewhat higher than two dimensions".

This may very well be crap, however.

-Robin

On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:28:43AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > BTW, I think {gunma} means "consists of", not "contains". The x2
> > of gunma are all the constituents of x1. There's {selpau} or
> > {selcmi} or {vasru} for "contains".
>
> "contains" in Zendo doesn't really mean "contains"; gunma was
> suggested by kpreid, and it's really much better.

I take {gunma pa xunre dacti} to mean "consists of exactly one
red piece", no other pieces of any kind. In other words, I take
{gunma} to mean what you use {mulgunma} for. In other words,
if a koan ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i, I would say:

ko'a gunma koe joi ko'i
"ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i together"

and not

ko'a gunma ko'e .e ko'i

Which to me does not mean "ko'a contains ko'e and ko'a contains
ko'i" but "ko'a consists of ko'e" and at the asme time "ko'a consists
of ko'i", which would only make sense if ko'e and ko'i are the same
things.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Posted by rlpowell on Wed 07 of Dec, 2005 14:59 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:55:13AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:28:43AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > BTW, I think {gunma} means "consists of", not "contains". The
> > > x2 of gunma are all the constituents of x1. There's {selpau}
> > > or {selcmi} or {vasru} for "contains".
> >
> > "contains" in Zendo doesn't really mean "contains"; gunma was
> > suggested by kpreid, and it's really much better.
>
> I take {gunma pa xunre dacti} to mean "consists of exactly one red
> piece", no other pieces of any kind. In other words, I take
> {gunma} to mean what you use {mulgunma} for.

Then you need to take that up with the gismu list. Everyone on IRC
at the time I asked (except me) said that the x2 of gunma need not
be a complete specification.

> In other words,
>
> if a koan ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i, I would say:
>
> ko'a gunma ko'e joi ko'i
>
> "ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i together"
>
> and not
>
> ko'a gunma ko'e .e ko'i
>
> Which to me does not mean "ko'a contains ko'e and ko'a contains
> ko'i" but "ko'a consists of ko'e" and at the same time "ko'a
> consists of ko'i", which would only make sense if ko'e and ko'i
> are the same things.

You are, of course, correct that me usage of .e is wrong. Hardly
the first time.

That doesn't mean that the x2 of gunma is a full specification,
though. Seperate issues.

-Robin

On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:55:13AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > I take {gunma pa xunre dacti} to mean "consists of exactly one red
> > piece", no other pieces of any kind. In other words, I take
> > {gunma} to mean what you use {mulgunma} for.
>
> Then you need to take that up with the gismu list. Everyone on IRC
> at the time I asked (except me) said that the x2 of gunma need not
> be a complete specification.

If it's not a complete specification, the "considered jointly" does not
make a lot of sense.

> > if a koan ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i, I would say:
> >
> > ko'a gunma ko'e joi ko'i
> >
> > "ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i together"
> >
> > and not
> >
> > ko'a gunma ko'e .e ko'i
>
> You are, of course, correct that me usage of .e is wrong. Hardly
> the first time.
>
> That doesn't mean that the x2 of gunma is a full specification,
> though. Seperate issues.

Not a separate issue. If a mere component is enough in x2, then
the {.e} version is perfectly correct, since each of {ko'a gunma ko'e}
and {ko'a gunma ko'i} would be true.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Posted by rlpowell on Wed 07 of Dec, 2005 15:17 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 12:06:12PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:55:13AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > I take {gunma pa xunre dacti} to mean "consists of exactly one
> > > red piece", no other pieces of any kind. In other words, I
> > > take {gunma} to mean what you use {mulgunma} for.
> >
> > Then you need to take that up with the gismu list. Everyone on
> > IRC at the time I asked (except me) said that the x2 of gunma
> > need not be a complete specification.
>
> If it's not a complete specification, the "considered jointly"
> does not make a lot of sense.

I don't see a strong connection there.

{ly ly gy gunma mi joi la xorxes}, for example; is certainly true
that the LLG consists of you and I, considered jointly, but that is
not *all* it consists of.

For the record, I agree with you; when about 3 people all disagreed
with me simultaneously, I decided that that was clearly not the only
reading of the gismu list.

The problem with "vasru" is that a koan is not a container in any
obvious sense. Do you have any suggestions for a more specific way
to get at the "contains some things including X" without "joi lo
drata" ?

> > > if a koan ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i, I would say:
> > >
> > > ko'a gunma ko'e joi ko'i
> > >
> > > "ko'a consists of ko'e and ko'i together"
> > >
> > > and not
> > >
> > > ko'a gunma ko'e .e ko'i
> >
> > You are, of course, correct that me usage of .e is wrong. Hardly
> > the first time.
> >
> > That doesn't mean that the x2 of gunma is a full specification,
> > though. Seperate issues.
>
> Not a separate issue. If a mere component is enough in x2, then
> the {.e} version is perfectly correct, since each of {ko'a gunma
> ko'e} and {ko'a gunma ko'i} would be true.

Yeah, I eventually realized that.

-Robin

On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> {ly ly gy gunma mi joi la xorxes}, for example; is certainly true
> that the LLG consists of you and I, considered jointly, but that is
> not *all* it consists of.

We have a different understanding of "consist of" then, I would not
say in English that the LLG consists of you and I.

> For the record, I agree with you; when about 3 people all disagreed
> with me simultaneously, I decided that that was clearly not the only
> reading of the gismu list.

I don't see what the "considered jointly" adds to the definition if
the LLG can "consist of you" and at the same time "consist of me".

> The problem with "vasru" is that a koan is not a container in any
> obvious sense. Do you have any suggestions for a more specific way
> to get at the "contains some things including X" without "joi lo
> drata" ?

{selcmi}. {ko'a selcmi ko'e} says that ko'a contains ko'e in the
required sense (not as a separate container) without saying
whether or not it contains anything else.

{selpau} would also work, except it would seem to require there
to be at least some other part, i.e. {ko'a selpau ko'e} says that
ko'e is part of ko'a, but there would have to be some other parts
to ko'a besides ko'e.

I can't really vouch for any of this of course. I can only
tell you how I interpret these words.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Posted by clsn on Wed 07 of Dec, 2005 19:26 GMT posts: 84

> On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 05:07:19AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:28:43AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Because Zendo pieces aren't three dimensional; they are about
> > > > 2.1 by my guess.
> > >
> > > They have fractal dimension?!
> >
> > That was my intention, yes.
>
> It should be noted that I've never really formally understood
> fractionaly dimensions, but I've read informal things that have said
> things like "a field strewn with boulders can be considered (taking
> the field as 2-d) to be somewhat higher than two dimensions".
>
> This may very well be crap, however.

One also speaks of the human visual field as having "2 and a half" dimensions, because the binocular vision *sorta* gives us some third-dimension. This is also unrelated to fractal dimensionality, which doesn't really enter into this.

Zendo blocks are definitely 3-dimensional. You even describe them as having planar faces and a "hollow" *face* on the bottom. That they are empty doesn't really enter into things. They're 3D blocks, and are treated as such in the game. (Also a little as containers, which is another matter.)

~mark

Posted by rlpowell on Thu 08 of Dec, 2005 08:25 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 01:54:34PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > {ly ly gy gunma mi joi la xorxes}, for example; is certainly
> > true that the LLG consists of you and I, considered jointly, but
> > that is not *all* it consists of.
>
> We have a different understanding of "consist of" then, I would
> not say in English that the LLG consists of you and I.

Supplicatory model invoked.

> > For the record, I agree with you; when about 3 people all
> > disagreed with me simultaneously, I decided that that was
> > clearly not the only reading of the gismu list.
>
> I don't see what the "considered jointly" adds to the definition
> if the LLG can "consist of you" and at the same time "consist of
> me".

This wasn't about the .e vs. joi thing, this was about complete
specification or not. Whether, in other words, the x2 of gunma has
an implicit "joi lo drata".

> > The problem with "vasru" is that a koan is not a container in
> > any obvious sense. Do you have any suggestions for a more
> > specific way to get at the "contains some things including X"
> > without "joi lo drata" ?
>
> {selcmi}. {ko'a selcmi ko'e} says that ko'a contains ko'e in the
> required sense (not as a separate container) without saying
> whether or not it contains anything else.

• nod* Thanks. In that case, the gismu list specifically says that

the x1 may be incomplete. It should say one or the other for the x2
of gunma as well, and I'll see about fixing that.

> {selpau} would also work, except it would seem to require there to
> be at least some other part, i.e. {ko'a selpau ko'e} says that
> ko'e is part of ko'a, but there would have to be some other parts
> to ko'a besides ko'e.

• nod*

-Robin

Posted by rlpowell on Thu 08 of Dec, 2005 08:25 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 11:26:35AM -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org
wrote:
> Re: Zendo In Lojban
> > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 05:07:19AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2005 at 09:28:43AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as
> > > wrote:
> > > > On 12/7/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Because Zendo pieces aren't three dimensional; they are
> > > > > about 2.1 by my guess.
> > > >
> > > > They have fractal dimension?!
> > >
> > > That was my intention, yes.
> >
> > It should be noted that I've never really formally understood
> > fractionaly dimensions, but I've read informal things that have
> > said things like "a field strewn with boulders can be considered
> > (taking the field as 2-d) to be somewhat higher than two
> > dimensions".
> >
> > This may very well be crap, however.
>
> One also speaks of the human visual field as having "2 and a half"
> dimensions, because the binocular vision *sorta* gives us some
> third-dimension. This is also unrelated to fractal
> dimensionality, which doesn't really enter into this.

• nod*

> Zendo blocks are definitely 3-dimensional. You even describe them
> as having planar faces and a "hollow" *face* on the bottom. That
> they are empty doesn't really enter into things. They're 3D
> blocks, and are treated as such in the game. (Also a little as
> containers, which is another matter.)

OK.

-Robin