Re: Lojban ML: Syllogism and sophism

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

>>>    le vi karce cu klani li pasexa le ka la djan litru lo ki'otre [be
>>>ce'uxire] [ce'uxipa]
>>>    This car is quantified as 176 in the scale of kilometers
>>>travelled by John driving it.
>>
>>I haven't the vaguest idea how you determine the links of those two ce'u
>>terms.  I mean I can see it using careful word-analysis, but it seems
>>unwieldy to resolve.  Might I suggest that pe vo'a and pe vo'e would be
>>clearer than the subscripts?
>
>But vo'a and vo'e don't leave the slots open, which is crucial.
>We no longer have a scale if you fill the slots. To see why we
>can't use vo'a consider this case:
>
>        i abu klani li no le ka lo mitre be ce'uxire cu sirji vo'a ce'uxipa
>        A is 0 in the scale of meters from A.
>
>        i by go'i ma
>        What is B in the same scale?
>
>        i by go'i li re
>        B is 2 (in the scale of meters from A).
>
>If we use vo'a instead of ce'uxipa in the first sentence, then we
>cannot use the same scale to measure B that we used to
>measure A.

You misunderstand.  I mean that, rather than use subscripts, to identify the
ce'u terms in terms of their associated places:
>le vi karce cu klani li pasexa le ka la djan litru lo ki'otre
   be ce'upevo'e  ce'upevo'a

or in the latter example
>abu klani li no le ka lo mitre be ce'upevo'e cu sirji vo'a ce'upevo'a

The reason is that subscripts have many possible interpretations, whereas
in Lojban we have other ways to link to specific places.

By using pe I am indicating only a loose association with the value of vo'a.
But we could be even looser be using le klani and le se klani.

But to me, reading or even worse hearing subscripts brings out the
math notation block that keepsme from using higher maths and symbolic logic
efficiently and wil probably inspire true mathphobes to shun the construct
if not the language.  We need to have the means to invoke the apparatus of
logic without the unnatural formality.

>I can use a scale that assigns a number to an object, or
>a scale that assigns a number to a relationship. I don't
>see why we would want to deny the possibility of doing
>the first case. Indeed, mitre, grake, snidu, etc, are actually
>used like that, relating the object and the number, so I'm
>not introducing any new concept here.

> > You seem to have
>>settled on ka for solely that relationships with open slots, and it isn't
>>even clear you really care about the property nature of the abstraction,
>>merely the openslottedness.
>
>What is the property nature of the abstraction other than the
>openslottedness?

If you mean what I think you do in the first of these two paragraphs then
you should understand.  If I can assign a number to a relationship, then
I am measuring something about the realtionship, and not necessarily the
objects that fill that relationship in isolation.  I have always envisioned
the properties (ka) of a  bridi to refer to those properties which
determine whether the bridi is true, and ni to refer to those properties which
relate to truth and are measureable/enumerable.

With an openslotted bridi, you are relating only to those properties specific
to the open slot(s).  With a filled-slot bridi then the nature/values of those
properties is determined/evaluatable.

Maybe to me the ultimate concept of ka I have is one in which all the places
are openslotted (or maybe that is what I mean by si'o, and ka is what
results when you then consider si'o in light of all the places you have
filled in - that might describe my concept except that I am not sure it covers
the entirety of si'o).
>What can be a cenba then in your opinion? A person can be a cenba and
>remain the same person. An event can also be a cenba and remain
>the same event. If the change is large enough it might mean that the
>person is no longer the same person, or the event is no longer the
>same event. Is that a problem?

Then I would see it as a binxo, having a final state that is a different
person or event from that which started.  (I say this noting that binxo
does not say what changed in order to go from state a to state b, but that
is almost certainly lujvo-able.

Remember that cenba is supposed to mean change as in "vary" rather than as
in "become different".

>>It is indeed the values (but not the nature) of the abstract relationships
>--More--
>>between the various places that is changing when a value changes.  At least
>>this is what I envisioned "property abstract" to mean.
>
>Yes, but that goes in the x2 of cenba! In the x1 goes the object that
>has that property.

But to me it is NOT The object that has the properties in ka, but the
relationship between ALL the objects that has the properties.

You see le ka ce'u djuno
to be a property of a knower.  I see leka djuno as being the properties of
"knowing".  If I then add in ce'u I am focussing on certain aspects of those
massed properties.

>>How you say all of these with cenba, I do not expect to resolve to Jorge's
>>satisfaction %^)
>
>Why, won't you even try?

because we seem so far apart in our basic conceptions that if I did figure out
 how to say it, it would prove nothing (excpet that I can do so) and would not
clarify the matter being discussed.  Instead it would open new tangents as if
we started discussing djuno again .a'unai in the  midst of this abstraction
discussion.

>
>        la djan cenba le ka ce'u cu'ekau blanu
>        John changes in the time/tense signature of his being blue.


whereas for me it is lenu la djan blanu that is varying, and not John.  I
cannot get past that point of the top of my head, but it is the event that is
varying and not the person referred to in the event.  This just seems so
basic to me that I cannot think clearly about it - it is more of an underlying
assumption  about the nature of change or of events.

>        la djan cenba le ka ce'u blanu sela'u makau
>        John changes in the degree to which he is blue.

This one seems particularly problematical to me.  sela'u invokes the
x1 of klani, and you would have a statement on this subject put John in the
x1.  I then start into a mind-boggle of sumti swapping that starts with:

        la djan cenba le ka ce'u blanu gi'e klani makau
        la djan cenba le ka ce'u blanu gi'e klani makau ma
        la djan cenba le ka ce'u blanu gi'e klani makau leka ce'u blanu
and somewhere around there my mind senses an impending infinite loop and stops
trying.

>>>If you put the property in the x1,
>>>then the change has to be in a property of properties,
>>
>>I don't think that should have to be the case.
>
>What would you put in the x2 of cenba in that case, then?

If I say that
leka la djan blanu cu cenba, then given that blanu is a one place predicate
the x2 is probably something like  leka la djan cenba do'ekaumakau

To me when something varies, normally we assume that everything else stays
the same, so I have merely reiterated the x1 and focussed on what is changing
with the kau marking.  I have no idea if this actually fits how you see kau
being used, of course.

co'omi'e lojbab