Re: PLI: gismu for <lojrfuzi>

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

>selkantu is quantized. kamkantu is quantumness.
>
>Also, I don't know if this is any good, maybe you could use selkle,
>divided into classes. Because, if you say "It hurts like 3 on 10-valued
>scale", you are not dealing with quants of pain, but much larger units
>(I don't think anybody has defined a quant of pain yet... But then I am
>no physician. Maybe minimal impulse capable of getting from the receptor
>to the brain?). What you are doing is translating a continuous scale
>into a discreet one, i.e. classifying the data. There are very few
>things we can measure on a quantum scale (does this count as a pun?).
>
>So, I think you basically have three concepts:
>
>1. two-valued logic corresponds to Aristotle's (if this is what you call
>   Zoroastrian, OK, I don't know what it is)
>2. discrete multi-valued logic (a simplification of fuzzy logic for
>   human use), and
>3. continuous logic which nobody can really use, because we can't
>   calculate, or even measure things to infinite precision (which is
>   what a continuity of scale inspires in my mind)
>
>co'o mi'e. goran.

I want to note in passing BTW that it is NOT defined that kuspe and kantu
are opposites, and that kamkuspe is not the same thing as kamnal(sel)kantu.

If discrete logics are viewed as either kam(sel)kantu or kam(sel)klesi
then continuous might be better viewed by inserting a nal after the kam-
in those lujvo.

I also will throw in kamckilu for scalar (logic) and so'irkle for
many-categoried per Goran's 2. above.

I will also mention for Goran's sake that AFAIK there is nothing in the
definition of quantum that reqwuires a quantum unit to be tiny - what
matters is that there be no possibility of a value in between discrete
quanta, and nothing can be in more than one quantum  state at the same time.
Someone will surely correct me if that is an incorrect definition of a
quantum %^)

lojbab