Re: Set Theory Woes

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

>For a language that claims to be logical, Lojban really ought to have
>better words for set theory. All I can find is "ce", "jo'e", "ku'a" and
>"pi'u",

Hey, JCB only had joi %^)

>Worse still, "ce" is inconsistently defined in the refgram. On page 354,
>"A ce B" is defined as the set with elements A and B (or {A, B}).
>Logically, and together with the left-grouping rule, this means that "la
>frank. ce la .alis. ce la djeimyz." means {{Frank, Alice}, James}, that
>is, a set with the two members James and the set of Frank and Alice. Page
>355 inconsistenly assigns this sumti to the more useful meaning {Frank,
>Alice, James}.

I would not think that left grouping constitutes bounding of the set.

If you want to formally get into mathematical set spectification, then you
need to goi fully into Mex, where you have parenthesis to set bounds on the
set definition.  Possibly lu'i would also work.

>Therefore, the "ce" (but probably not "ce'o") problem could be solved
>with a set-making cmavo that when applied to a single item referred to
>the set containing just that item, and when applied to a mass referred to
>the set containing all the items in the mass. When does the baseline
>period end?

We will not even DISCUSS changing the language until the baseline period ends,
and that ending period will not be determined by others' perceived needs
for change.  The language is frozen for a minimum 5 year period,
and if our pattern is followed, it is likely to be 5 years from the last of
the defining books (the textbook, after the dictionary).

lojbab