Re: TECH: fuzzy logic

[Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>]

je'a xi pimu broda
truly-sub-.5 broda is the dictionary translation of that Lojban.

But subscripts have no COMMON "literal meaning" in such a context - all
we have is some suggestion of a 'different variety of je'a', since that is
what subscripts usually mean in variable contexts..

The proposed convention of course follows that standard syntactic pattern
so that does not apply?  So how does your definition apply to this usage?

>I am trying to exclude idiomatic expressions
>from lojban, especially in the quantifier area.

>I don't see "ro" with or without existential import as meeting the
>definition of an idiom.

Well, since Lojabn words are supposed to have exactly one literal definition
and the two versions I have seen are contradictory as to requirig
existence, then there will be instances where someone using "ro - but not
existent" or rather assuming that meaning, will use ro such that the
"literal meaning" is not preserved, and indeed the truth-value of the sentence
is not preserved.

>I believe that in the
>quantifier area words should not differ from their literal meaning,

So what is the literal meaning of "ro"?  That is one argument.

In the case of je'a xi pimu, the quantifier ".5" has the meaning ".5", and
I don;t see any implication that it is any other meaning.

Indeed, one might argue that use of quantifier subscripts in regular math
e.g. xsub1 xub2 violates the literal meaning of quantifiers far more, since
there is no requirement in mathematics that the ordinal properties of the
integers are important or even apply to such subscripts - the numbers are
merely used to show that the two x's are different.

All this is NOT to say that I am particularly fond of the xi-quantifier
version of fuzzy logic.  Indeed, I suspect I dislike it and am not sure
what it solves (surely not the whole problem of fuzzy logic) that warrants us
 defining the convention at this point.  I think that the needs of fuzzy logic
in terms of Lojban expression is a problem that need not be solved now - we
need only to have confidence that there is enough power in the current language
via such structures as XI+quantifier that when we do figure out what is needed,
we can do so with no grammar changes and perhaps even no additional cmavo
(there may be Zipfean arguments are a cmavo to shorten an unwieldy compound
 structure, but that means that we need to see the structure being used or
 useful.
I remain unconvinced that there will be sufficient use of fuzzy logic in Lojban
to warraant anything shorter than the 15 syllable expressions that Steven fears
even though I personally am sure that the language won't require 15 syllables to
 express what is needed.

>For example, (if I remember this right,
>and I don't think I do), "qu'est ce que c'est un horloge"  means in
>french, "what is a clock?' but if you try to translate it word for word
>--More--
>it is doesn't compute.

Meaning that it is ungrammatical, or that it means something different from
what you expect such as "raining cats and dogs" which is what I think of as
an idiom, or "the paint ran" (on what limbs?) or "do your hair"?

lojbab