Re: PLI: gismu for <lojrfuzi>

[Goran Topic <topic@STUDENT.MATH.HR>]

> >selkantu is quantized. kamkantu is quantumness.
>
> Yes, I saw this in the dictionary also:
>
> &quantized,x2 of kantu
> &quantum,x1 of kantu
> *quantum, x1 is a |/ray/elementary particle/smallest measurable increment
> of property/activity x2 /:/ [| ray (= bonka'u)] /=/ kantu (ka'u)
>
> Perhaps your interpretation is right; I find it a real struggle to decipher
> some of the rather terse definitions in the dictionary. But I think x2 of
> kantu means "the property/activity quantized" rather than the  "quantized".
> Thus <selkantu> is not the abstraction of <kantu> that we want, as it is
> referring to a particular instance, when I want to talk about the abstract
> concept. I agree that <kamkantu> could be translated to English as
> "quantumness", but would also argue it could be translated as "quantized"
> In my view, the following two statements are equivalent:

If what you want to say is quantized logic, .e'u use {selka'u logji} =
"logic of the thing which is quantized". The tanru mechanism takes care
of this. If you said {kamkantu logji}, I would take it to mean "logic of
the property of being a quant", not "logic with the property of being
quantized"

> "Electron orbitals have quantumness."
>
> "Electron orbitals are quantized."

Yes, but we do not differentiate between kamkantu and kamselkantu in
gliban. I have no objection to kamselkantu, but kamkantu I would view as
wrong concept, even though I would la'a understand what you want to say.
Taking default meanings of sumti places, kamkantu is the property of
being a quant, which can be ckajied by bits of info and quants of
energy. kamselkantu is a property of being quantized, ckajiable by
energy and information either as abstract concepts, or as some quantity
thereof, like, 1 MJ of energy, or 75 Kb of info.

> As lojbab has pointed out, <kantu> refers to things indivisible and single
> valued, but not necessarily small.

Let's build a simulation here. Let's simplify, and say we have a 2
valued scale {0,1}. OK? Now, our patient says he feels 1 in his stomach.
Then we punch him in his guts. His pain has doubtless increased, right?
And he still says "I feel... nnngh... 1...". So, even though you set
an arbitrary scale, (that it is two valued doesn't really matter, it is
just for simplicity's sake), you have made a noticeable increment in the
{ni broda}, while still reading the same value on your scale. Ergo, it
is not "smallest measurable increment of property". Now you might object
saying that using this scale it is "smallest measurable", but my
instincts disagree. I can tell the difference between 1.5 volt and 4.5
volt batteries by using my tongue, but not between 1.5 volt and 1 volt.
But that doesn't lead me to the conclusion that 1.5 volts constitutes a
quant of electrical current-multiplied-by-resistance or
power-divided-by-current thingy (whatever it is called in gliban or
lojban).

> >There are very few
> >things we can measure on a quantum scale (does this count as a pun?).
>
> What about cookies? I have three cookies in my lunchbox. What about
> anything else you would describe using integers? Integers are quantizers
> for things measured on a <kamkantu> scale.

I eat a bit, and I am left with just half a cookie. I eat a bit more,
and lo!, there are some crumbs left and not much more. Quantum? Not
even integral. (excuse the pun)

> >2. discrete multi-valued logic (a simplification of fuzzy logic for
> >   human use), and
>
> No, the simplification of fuzzy for human use is not a transformation from
> fuzzy to discrete. When someone says they are "90% sure they will be at the
> party" they are not saying they are *exactly* 90% sure. They are giving a
> fuzzy estimate of their certainty about party attendance. If they said that
> they thought there was a "90% chance they will be at the party" that is
> still another thing, a probabilistic statement.

No-one has ever successfully managed to measure sureness in an objective
way. Maybe the guy is 90.1% sure, but he didn't bother to say so. When
anybody tells me that something is 90% of something else, I
automatically assume that they are working with a scale with 101 (or,
maybe in informal speech, 11) classes. When I hear 90.0%, I envision
scale with 1001 subcategories. And when somebody says fifty percent, I
automatically visualise three categories. Not infinite. Just three.

> >3. continuous logic which nobody can really use,
>
> Actually, I believe that fuzzy logic is what we *do* use most of the time.
> Yesterday I was describing an extraction we did using the HPLC instrument I
> have in my laboratory. I said that the extracted chemical was "fairly pure"
> Someone corrected me and said that purity was an absolute, and that "fairly
> pure" was an improper use of the word "pure". I disagreed that this was the
> only way that pure could be used. He agreed that he understood what I
> meant, in the context of our conversation. So we calculated the degree of
> purity (it was 98.2 percent pure by dry weight). For the purposes of our
> conversation, fairly pure was good enough to convey what I meant with the
> accuracy and precision I desired. So I used a fuzzification. The exact
> value of purity was irrelevant to our discussion, and was a distraction.

Well, yes, but what I am saying is that 98.3% would probably also be dubbed
"fairly pure", right? So what you have is actually a class of degree of
purity. When you fall below some limit (which need not be rigidly
defined, so you also have fuzzy classes), you'd call it "pure enough",
then "still not pure enough", then "not really pure", "not pure" and
"hey, we didn't even start yet". I can't see this as continuous.

> >because we can't
> >   calculate, or even measure things to infinite precision (which is
> >   what a continuity of scale inspires in my mind)
>
> You are misunderstanding what fuzzy logic is. There is no need for infinite
> precision. Perhaps you are confusing the number of fuzzy sets being used
> with some requirement for infinite precision. I call the number of fuzzy
> sets the "granularity" of fuzziness. If the granularity is 5 and we are
> using an interval scale, then there are 6 sets, which I designate as:
>
> {0/5, 1/5, 2/5, 3/5, 4/5, 5/5}

This is discrete, six-valued approximation of fuzzy logic. This is exactly
what I am saying. This scale is definitely not continuous. Continuous
scale uses real numbers. Nothing can calculate with real numbers. If
you think otherwise, calculate pi+e*sqrt(2). And remember, if you don't
use infinite precision, you are not dealing with real, but rational numbers.
And we can't even cope with the continuity of the rational numbers,
since that would mean calculating with arbitrarily large nominators and
denominators, which you can't really do. (2^(6^25-1))/(17^(31^661+23))?

co'o mi'e. goran.