History: Sumti Places Requiring Sets

Source of version: 1 (current)

{CODE(wrap="1")}[20:31] <rlpowell> Now, get rid of gismu places that require sets: *fuck* yes. But only the requirement, not the places. [20:33] <Melvar> Do the places make sense without sets? [20:33] <rlpowell> vensa: Also, I *do* try to listen, and respect people's objections and stuff. :) Just be nice, and I'll be nice back. [20:34] <rlpowell> Melvar: They make sense with any distributive group. [20:34] <Melvar> Exactly. [20:34] <rlpowell> Which isn't just sets. [20:34] <Melvar> What then? [20:35] <rlpowell> In fact, most of them make *way* more sense with loi than lo'i [20:35] <Melvar> Huh? Masses, distributive? [20:35] <rlpowell> Example: kampu: x1 (property - ka) is common/general/universal among members of set x2 (complete set) [20:36] <rlpowell> Erm, yes? That's their entire purpose? [20:36] <rlpowell> Masses are for "the students surrounded the building". Use that example as your analogical case and you can't really go wrong. :) [20:36] <rlpowell> No one student is doing the surrounding. The *set* of students certainly doesn't surround anything, because sets only have membership and cardinality. [20:37] <rlpowell> Lojban calls the non-distributive plural "masses". [20:38] == Sxem [~sky@pool-71-178-129-174.washdc.east.verizon.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 255 seconds] [20:38] <rlpowell> vensa: ^^ and that's why sets are kind of pointless. [20:38] <Melvar> Have you contradicted yourself or am I not understanding something important? [20:39] <rlpowell> The *only* attributes sets have are membership and cardinality. This makes them almost useless to say anything with outside of math. [20:39] <rlpowell> Melvar: As far as I know everything I said makes sense; what doesn't make sense to you? [20:40] == kpreid [~kpreid@128.153.22.154] has quit [Quit: Offline] [20:40] <Melvar> It seems to me that once you called masses distributive, and another time nondistributive, or else I misassigned a response … [20:41] <rlpowell> You're absolutely right. [20:41] <rlpowell> < rlpowell> Melvar: They make sense with any distributive group. -- I meant non-distributive. [20:42] == jey__ [jey@69.59.129.28] has joined #lojban [20:42] == jeyk [jey@69.59.129.28] has quit [Remote host closed the connection] [20:45] <paldanyli> Why does kampu make more sense with masses than sets? [20:46] <rlpowell> paldanyli: Because sets only have cardinality and membership. [20:46] <rlpowell> They have no other properties. [20:47] <rlpowell> The only thing that's "common" to a set is, I dunno, the most frequent member or something? It doesn't even really make sense. [20:48] <Melvar> The way I thought of it is that the concept of membership makes a set act as a distributive. [20:49] <paldanyli> It makes sense to me. We're talking about the members, no? [20:49] <rlpowell> Distributiveness is exactly not-helpful here; that's why you can't do "kampu mi .e do", because that distributes to "kampu mi" and "kampu do" [20:49] <rlpowell> Yeah, the idea is it's supposed to be "common among the members of the set", but "among the members of the mass" works just fine too. [20:49] <rlpowell> And "common to the mass" also. [20:50] <paldanyli> That doesn't make much sense to me. How could something be common in a mass? Perhaps I think of masses differently than everyone else. [20:51] <Melvar> Masses don’t have members, do they? [20:51] <rlpowell> How could they not? [20:51] <Melvar> ∈ is not defined on them. [20:51] <rlpowell> I mean, if sets have members, I don't see how a mass could possibly not; they're both plural abstractions. [20:51] <rlpowell> Umm. Nothing mathematical is defined on masses; we made them up. [20:52] <paldanyli> Wouldn't be much use if masses didn't have members. But if the purpose is to aggregate their properties, using them to get at their members properties seems strange. [20:53] <rlpowell> That's true for sets, too. :) [20:53] <paldanyli> Not to aggregate their properties. Just to indicate the membership. [20:54] <rlpowell> To me, a mass of something has all of the properties of its members, in proportion to their frequency. So the mass of rats is mostly X inches long, but somewhat Y inches long. [20:54] <rlpowell> That view is probably idiosyncratic, though. [20:54] == v1d [~v1d@brsg-4dbbbef9.pool.mediaWays.net] has quit [Quit: leaving] [20:54] == kpreid [~kpreid@128.153.178.199] has joined #lojban [20:54] == mode/#lojban [+o kpreid] by ChanServ [20:54] <paldanyli> That was my view as well. Which is why kampu on masses confuses me. [20:55] <rlpowell> Well, something that is common to all of them is clearly a major part of the mass, yeah? [20:55] <Melvar> kampu: p ↦ A ↦ ∀a∈A:p(a) [20:55] <rlpowell> I can't see most of that, sorry. [20:56] <Melvar> Wait a sec. [20:56] <paldanyli> I don't think there's any reason that masses couldn't serve as sets, but it's not what I think of their purpose as being. It's confusing to me to make a set then "break it apart". [20:56] <paldanyli> Make a mass, rather. [20:56] <rlpowell> Right, but whether you use a set or a mass there, you're asking about the members, not the set or the mass. [20:56] <rlpowell> So I don't see that it matters much. [20:57] <paldanyli> Probably not. I can't think of a property of sets that wouldn't apply to masses. [20:58] <rlpowell> And this all is why I wouldn't suggest getting rid of sets; if it's this easy to argue about, it's not clear cut. :D [20:58] <Melvar> $kampu: p \mapsto { A \mapsto \forall a \in A : p(a) }$ approximately. [21:01] == bbyever [c9672f14@gateway/web/freenode/ip.201.103.47.20] has joined #lojban [21:01] <paldanyli> I suppose the cardinality of a mass of masses would be in question. [21:02] <paldanyli> Likewise its membership? [21:03] == zugzwang1d [~zugz@193.52.24.4] has joined #lojban [21:03] <rlpowell> Hadn't thought about it. [21:04] == tom__ [~tom@cpc1-linl7-2-0-cust44.sgyl.cable.virginmedia.com] has joined #lojban [21:05] == tom__ has changed nick to _wtw_ [21:05] == rossi [~rossi@HSI-KBW-109-193-128-041.hsi7.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de] has joined #lojban [21:08] <Melvar> You could say I see sets as enumerable, but not masses. [21:10] <rlpowell> Which I think is a valid POV. [21:10] <rlpowell> I just don't know if that's how the language works. :) [21:10] == lindar [~lindarthe@32.174.46.157] has joined #lojban [21:11] <rlpowell> I'd love it if you could summarize all this to the appropriate BPFK page, btw. Perhaps the gadri one. {CODE}