WikiDiscuss

A>It is not a bias against 0; it just is the case that the logic of 0 is different from that of any other number (one reason why it took so long to recognize that 0 is a number — some aren't there yet).
B> {noda} is correct only in very narrowly prescribed cases (and I don't know just what those cases are). And, in those cases, it would be incorrect to use {zo'e}, though leaving the space blank is not a problem.
C> Not exactly — if I understand what is going on here. xorxes does not want to add BAI places that are not mentioned. And he wants unfilled central places to be filled as neutrally as possible — with the added wish that some of those places would go away (but which ones?).
D> Not at all hairsplitting, since '=' is symmetric and 'entails' is not (nor is 'implicates', which I think is more accurate, since the connection can be overriden).

xod <xod@thestonecutters.net> wrote:
Jorge Llambías wrote:

>Not sure what you mean. {klama noda} is {naku su'oda zo'u zo'e klama
>da zo'e zo'e zo'e}: "It is not the case that for at least one x,
>the relationship klama(-,x,-,-,-) holds".
>
>

A>Is that the same as asserting that it is true, with zero xes in the
second place? Then this is simply unfair bias against the number zero.

>The canonical answer:
>The x2 of klama is wherever you end up after the klamaing is over.
>There can't be an event of klama that does not end with the x1
>at x2. The x2 is not the destination, as in the place the goer
>intends to go, but just the place where the goer ends up at.
>
>

B>Then replace the case with some gismu and instance where you feel noda
would be appropriate, and then re-answer the question. Unless you want
to assert that noda is never really correct, the physical
'impossibility' of klama noda is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

>My answer:
>Lojban gismu are bloated. In general they have too many places,
>which means they force you to say things you don't want to
>(unless you are prepared to use zi'o all over the place).
>
>
>
>>In a sense you are claiming that noda is never an obvious term and never
>>an irrelevant possibility. Isn't that bold?
>>
>>
>
>Would you say that {naku} is ever obvious/irrelevant? {noda}
>is simply {naku su'oda}.
>
>

C>You're being consistent. You would prefer to eliminate any places that
aren't physically forced to be filled with non-zero values. My position
hinges on the idea that this is not currently the case, whether or not I
am able to provide an unassailable example!

>>Do you mean to say that zo'e = su'oda,
>>
>>
>
>Certainly not! But {zo'e} does entail {su'oda}.
>
>

D>Ah, splitting hairs between "=" and "entails".

>>but zi'o = ny. da where n = any
>>real number?
>>
>>
>
>{zi'o} eliminates the place from the place structure. I don't
>understand what you mean there.
>
>

Eliminating it from the place structure doesn't mean it has no value.
But it would prevent the ghost zo'e from appearing, allowing zero in
there as a quantity, as well as non-zero numbers.

--
Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam. Bin Laden's now got the Americans in the two holiest places in Islam, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq, and he has the Israelis in Jerusalem. All three sanctities are now occupied by infidels, a great reality for him.