WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: Inexact Numbers

posts: 1912


pc:
> As for the rest, your remarks suggest
> that you either think {pa lo'i broda} is some
> unspecified set of brodas, like {pa lo selcmi be
> lo broda}

Not exactly, but along those lines, yes.

Strictly speaking, {pa sumti} is a quantified term,
so it does not refer to anything, so it is not some
unspecified thing. What the quantifier does is tell us
that (exactly) one thing from those that are referents of
the sumti satisfies the selbri for which it is an argument.
I know you already know that, please don't take it as
lecturing. I'm just writing it down mainly to clarify
for myself.

> or you think that {pa lo selcmi be lo
> broda} is a one-membered subset or is one broda,
> like {pa lo'i broda}.

No, I do not think that. I think that outer quantifiers
are always true quantifiers. That would not count as a true
quantifier.

> Either way you violate
> your uniformity rule and need special, either for
> {lo'i} among the gadri or {selcmi} among
> predicates.

Could you please elaborate. In both cases, the referent of the
sumti is a set, and {pa} quantifies over those referents. (They
are a special case in that the sumti happen to have a single
referent to start with, so quantification is not very
interesting, but that's not a violation of the general rule.)

> Actually, I don't think there can be a good
> reason for the identification, so I don't really
> expect you to provide one. What I have been
> presenting is (now five) reasons not to accept
> the identification, to see if you can knock any
> of them down.

Could you make a succint list of the remaining
reasons? I think I lost truck, sorry.

> Essentially the same objections apply to this
> latest definition as well: the first is PA brodas
> (collectively), the second is some collections of
> PA brodas — maybe but not necessarily only one
> — and that one may or may not be the one picked
> out {loi broda}.

"x1 is the set of x2" gives a function: for a given
x2 there is one and only one x1 that satisfies, so
{lo'i} as a contraction of {lo selcmi be lo} is well
defined.

> You are welcome to use {selcmi} in that way --
> once you advertise it. In that case, x2 is
> presumably {loi broda}, not {lo} (or, of course,
> {lo} in your ideal sense if you are point
> shifting again.

Point shifting? It's plural {lo}, as always.

mu'o mi'e xorxes




___
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com