[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>*Subject*: Re: fuzzy questions*From*: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>*Date*: Sun, 26 Nov 1995 21:17:08 -0500*Reply-To*: Jorge Llambias <jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU>*Sender*: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>

la stivn cusku di'e > 1. In my previous post, I wondered if a single selmao was enough to get the > job done, and suggested that 4 new selmao in this new family <XOI> were > needed, one for each of the scales (nominal, ordinal, interval, ratio). For a nominal scale there is already {xi}, for an ordinal scale there is already {mai}. Both are used to make indicators, so their grammar is very flexible. To take an absurd example, instead of talking about birds, mammals, fish, insects, etc, you could use a nominal number scale and talk about animal_1, animal_2, animal_3, etc. The logical extension is to eliminate all gismu and replace them with {broda xipa}, {broda xire}, etc. Memorizing them would be difficult, though. I'm not sure in what kind of context one would use ordinal scales, but there are the indicators {pamai}, {remai}, etc. Perhaps you could give a couple of examples where you would use an ordinal scale. > 2. How do we express confidence intervals? There is not much flexibility to do that, at least nobody has shown how to do it. For approximate numbers using {ji'i} there are two schools: the official take is to use for example 3ji'i45 to mean 345 +/- 50. My approach is to use the two ends of the interval, e.g. 300ji'i400. > "I am fuzzily tallish to extent 0.5." (Ratio scale implied) > > Those are o.k. They are elegant, compact expressions of fuzziness. But the > problem of scale specification raises its ugly head when these are > expressed as interrogatives: > > xu do pi mu xoi clani > > What does this mean? Does it asking if I have *exactly* 0.5 tallishness? > Then we have lost the fuzzy. Suppose I consider myself 0.6 tallish. How can I know what 0.6-tallish means? I've no idea whether that means that you are taller or shorter than me. What if you say "I'm 0.6-tallish, how about you?" There is no way that I can respond truthfully with a number, since I would be commiting myself to being taller or shorter than you, but I have no way of knowing how 0.6-tallish translates to meters, and if you tell me the equivalence between tallishness and meters then tallishness ceases to be a subjective word and becomes a measure word. What is the use of having two predicates, {galtu} and {mitre} if they are both used for the same thing? > Before you all think this is hopelessly artificial, here is a conversation > I had recently in English: > > Person 1: So what are you, about 6'1"? > Person 2: Yeah, within a couple of inches or so. But there is no fuzzy predication there. You are just giving an approximate number, which is perfectly fine: i do mitre li papibimuji'i xu? You are in meters 1.85approx., right? i go'i i klani li pimuji'i le ka jibni Yes, that is around 0.5 in nearness. For approximate numbers use {ji'i}, but your example does not involve any fuzzy predicates. > Here's another I've heard: > > Person 1: So the train gets in at 2? > Person 2: Plus or minus 10 minutes. Again there are no fuzzy predicates there. i le trene cu tolcliva ti'u li pavo xu The train arrives at 14:00 hours, then? i klani lipi'epano le ka jibni With 0:10 hour in nearness. But I don't see how fuzzy predicates, as opposed to inexact numbers, would help here. Jorge

- Prev by Date:
**zo lalxu .e zo xamsi .e zo skari** - Next by Date:
**Re: sei** - Prev by thread:
**fuzzy questions** - Next by thread:
**Re: fuzzy questions** - Index(es):