WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers

posts: 1912


pc:
> Well, of course, strict restriction to the inner
> domain is just what "To be is to be the value of
> a variable" means, despite the obvious reasonable
> extention to the outer domain; "a exists" is
> defined as "Ex x = a."

For me, {abu zasti} and {su'o da zo'u da du abu}
are quite different.

> If we can define singular quantifiers in terms of
> plural (as we can), shouldn't the plural
> quantifiers be given the basic forms and the
> others the more remote ones.

If the singular ones are the ones used more frequently,
then they should get the short forms. In any case, this
question is not one of logical consistency but one of
convenience.

> Generally, it would
> seem that variables function better as plural
> than as singular, especially given that {lo} and
> the like are instances of them (and are not, we
> hope, sets or groups). The "constant" part
> remains a problem, of course.

What other things, besides constants, can instantiate
variables in logic?

> > I want the meaning of {PA
> > sumti}
> > to depend only on the referents of sumti,
> > not on
> > its form.
>
> And how does this not? The referent of {lo'i
> broda} is a set of broda and what is among it is
> either some broda or some set of broda (just what
> {me} means with sets is somewhat obscure, since
> it is "defined" for other types of entities.

Well, that's the point. In my definitions it is no
more obscure than any other broda, {lo'i [PA] broda}
is just {lo selcmi be lo [PA] broda}. It is not
a special case.

> Perhaps this is
> one of those cases of not clearly marked (or not
> carefully observed) differences in what we are
> talking about. I think I am talking about
> current Lojban (your usage possibly excepted),
> are you talking about your ideal system?

I am talking about the proposed definitions, yes.

> (If so
> it seems to me monstrously inefficient, but that
> is another discussion).

And to me it seems wonderfully efficient. How do we
test efficiency? With examples?


> > > Similarly,
> > > {lo'i pa broda} is a set containing exactly
> > one
> > > broda,
> >
> > No problem with that.
> >
> > > {lo pa selcmi be lo broda} is a single set of
> > > broda, which set may be of any size.
> >
> > No problem with that.
> >
>
> Why isn't this a serious objection to your claim
> of the identity of the two encircling phrases?

Why should it be? {lo'i broda} = {lo brode} does
not of course entail {broda} = {brode}.

> Does merely specifying how many satisfiers of the
> predicate are involved completely change the
> nature of the referring expression? Why?

By definition:

{lo'i PA broda} = {lo selcmi be lo PA broda}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




__
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail