White Knight's Song Gotcha: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
No edit summary
 
(8 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{mu|zo djan. cmene mi}} and not {{mu|la djan. cmene mi}}


{CODE(wrap="1]][[jbocre: 20:31]] <rlpowell> Now, get rid of gismu places that require sets: *fuck* yes.  But only the requirement, not the places.
The latter would be giving your name <u>a name</u> - ''John'', and would in effect be saying ''my name is called John''.


[[jbocre: 20:33]] <Melvar> Do the places make sense without sets?
The Gotcha title is of course an allusion to the Lewis Carroll anecdote in ''Through the Looking Glass'' illustrating this:


[[jbocre: 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.
{{quotation|"Is it very long?" Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.


[[jbocre: 20:34]] <rlpowell> Melvar: They make sense with any distributive group.
"It's long," said the <nowiki>[White]</nowiki> Knight, "but it's very, ''very'' beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it - either it brings the <u>tears</u> into their eyes, or else -"


[[jbocre: 20:34]] <Melvar> Exactly.
"Or else what?" said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.


[[jbocre: 20:34]] <rlpowell> Which isn't just sets.
"Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called 'Haddock's Eyes'."


[[jbocre: 20:34]] <Melvar> What then?
"Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel interested.


[[jbocre: 20:35]] <rlpowell> In fact, most of them make *way* more sense with loi than lo'i
"No, you don't understand," the Knight said, looking a little vexed. "That's what the name is ''called''. The name really is 'The Aged Aged Man'."


[[jbocre: 20:35]] <Melvar> Huh? Masses, distributive?
"Then I ought to have said 'That's what the <u>song</u> is called?'" Alice corrected herself.


[[jbocre: 20:35]] <rlpowell> Example: kampu: x1 (property - ka) is common/general/universal among members of set x2 (complete set)
"No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The <u>song</u> is called 'Ways and Means': but that's only what it's called, you know!"


[[jbocre: 20:36]] <rlpowell> Erm, yes?  That's their entire purpose?
"Well, what is the song, then?" said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.


[[jbocre: 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. :)
"I was coming to that," the Knight said. "The song really is 'A-sitting on a Gate': and the tune's my own invention."}}


[[jbocre: 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.


[[jbocre: 20:37]] <rlpowell> Lojban calls the non-distributive plural "masses".
Martin Gardner's annotations point out that the claim beginning "The song really is" is illogical, because its object is merely another name.  To be consistent, the White Knight should have actually sung the song at this point.


[[jbocre: 20:38]] == Sxem [[jbocre: ~sky@pool-71-178-129-174.washdc.east.verizon.net]] has quit [[jbocre: Ping timeout: 255 seconds]]
For a Lojban translation, see [http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9205/msg00026.html], with the inevitable flame from [[Ivan Derzhanski|Ivan Derzhanski]]: [http://balance.wiw.org/~jkominek/lojban/9206/msg00012.html] (echoing a similar flame by [[pc|pc]]: [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/message/7477]).
 
[[jbocre: 20:38]] <rlpowell> vensa: ^^ and that's why sets are kind of pointless.
 
[[jbocre: 20:38]] <Melvar> Have you contradicted yourself or am I not understanding something important?
 
[[jbocre: 20:39]] <rlpowell> The *only* attributes sets have are membership and cardinality.  This makes them almost useless to say anything with outside of math.
 
[[jbocre: 20:39]] <rlpowell> Melvar: As far as I know everything I said makes sense; what doesn't make sense to you?
 
[[jbocre: 20:40]] == kpreid [[jbocre: ~kpreid@128.153.22.154]] has quit [[jbocre: Quit: Offline]]
 
[[jbocre: 20:40]] <Melvar> It seems to me that once you called masses distributive, and another time nondistributive, or else I misassigned a response …
 
[[jbocre: 20:41]] <rlpowell> You're absolutely right.
 
[[jbocre: 20:41]] <rlpowell> < rlpowell> Melvar: They make sense with any distributive group. -- I meant non-distributive.
 
[[jbocre: 20:42]] == jey''' [[jbocre: jey@69.59.129.28]] has joined #lojban
 
[[jbocre: 20:42]] == jeyk [[jbocre: jey@69.59.129.28]] has quit [[jbocre: Remote host closed the connection|Remote host closed the connection]]
 
[[jbocre: 20:45]] <paldanyli> Why does kampu make more sense with masses than sets?
 
[[jbocre: 20:46]] <rlpowell> paldanyli: Because sets only have cardinality and membership.
 
[[jbocre: 20:46]] <rlpowell> They have no other properties.
 
[[jbocre: 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.
 
[[jbocre: 20:48]] <Melvar> The way I thought of it is that the concept of membership makes a set act as a distributive.
 
[[jbocre: 20:49]] <paldanyli> It makes sense to me. We're talking about the members, no?
 
[[jbocre: 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"
 
[[jbocre: 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.
 
[[jbocre: 20:49]] <rlpowell> And "common to the mass" also.
 
[[jbocre: 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.
 
[[jbocre: 20:51]] <Melvar> Masses don’t have members, do they?
 
[[jbocre: 20:51]] <rlpowell> How could they not?
 
[[jbocre: 20:51]] <Melvar> ∈ is not defined on them.
 
[[jbocre: 20:51]] <rlpowell> I mean, if sets have members, I don't see how a mass could possibly not; they're both plural abstractions.
 
[[jbocre: 20:51]] <rlpowell> Umm. Nothing mathematical is defined on masses; we made them up.
 
[[jbocre: 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.
 
[[jbocre: 20:53]] <rlpowell> That's true for sets, too. :)
 
[[jbocre: 20:53]] <paldanyli> Not to aggregate their properties. Just to indicate the membership.
 
[[jbocre: 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.
 
[[jbocre: 20:54]] <rlpowell> That view is probably idiosyncratic, though.
 
[[jbocre: 20:54]] == v1d [[jbocre: ~v1d@brsg-4dbbbef9.pool.mediaWays.net]] has quit [[jbocre: Quit: leaving]]
 
[[jbocre: 20:54]] == kpreid [[jbocre: ~kpreid@128.153.178.199]] has joined #lojban
 
[[jbocre: 20:54]] == mode/#lojban [[jbocre: +o kpreid|+o kpreid]] by ChanServ
 
[[jbocre: 20:54]] <paldanyli> That was my view as well. Which is why kampu on masses confuses me.
 
[[jbocre: 20:55]] <rlpowell> Well, something that is common to all of them is clearly a major part of the mass, yeah?
 
[[jbocre: 20:55]] <Melvar> kampu: p ↦ A ↦ ∀a∈A:p(a)
 
[[jbocre: 20:55]] <rlpowell> I can't see most of that, sorry.
 
[[jbocre: 20:56]] <Melvar> Wait a sec.
 
[[jbocre: 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".
 
[[jbocre: 20:56]] <paldanyli> Make a mass, rather.
 
[[jbocre: 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.
 
[[jbocre: 20:56]] <rlpowell> So I don't see that it matters much.
 
[[jbocre: 20:57]] <paldanyli> Probably not. I can't think of a property of sets that wouldn't apply to masses.
 
[[jbocre: 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
 
[[jbocre: 20:58]] <Melvar> $kampu: p \mapsto { A \mapsto \forall a \in A : p(a) }$ approximately.
 
[[jbocre: 21:01]] == bbyever [[jbocre: c9672f14@gateway/web/freenode/ip.201.103.47.20]] has joined #lojban
 
[[jbocre: 21:01]] <paldanyli> I suppose the cardinality of a mass of masses would be in question.
 
[[jbocre: 21:02]] <paldanyli> Likewise its membership?
 
[[jbocre: 21:03]] == zugzwang1d [[jbocre: ~zugz@193.52.24.4]] has joined #lojban
 
[[jbocre: 21:03]] <rlpowell> Hadn't thought about it.
 
[[jbocre: 21:04]] == tom''' [[jbocre: ~tom@cpc1-linl7-2-0-cust44.sgyl.cable.virginmedia.com]] has joined #lojban
 
[[jbocre: 21:05]] == tom''' has changed nick to _wtw_
 
[[jbocre: 21:05]] == rossi [[jbocre: ~rossi@HSI-KBW-109-193-128-041.hsi7.kabel-badenwuerttemberg.de]] has joined #lojban
 
[[jbocre: 21:08]] <Melvar> You could say I see sets as enumerable, but not masses.
 
[[jbocre: 21:10]] <rlpowell> Which I think is a valid POV.
 
[[jbocre: 21:10]] <rlpowell> I just don't know if that's how the language works.  :)
 
[[jbocre: 21:10]] == lindar [[jbocre: ~lindarthe@32.174.46.157]] has joined #lojban
 
[[jbocre: 21:11]] <rlpowell> I'd love it if you could summarize all this to the appropriate BPFK page, btw.  Perhaps the gadri one.
 
{CODE}

Latest revision as of 04:15, 21 November 2017

zo djan. cmene mi

and not

la djan. cmene mi

The latter would be giving your name a name - John, and would in effect be saying my name is called John.

The Gotcha title is of course an allusion to the Lewis Carroll anecdote in Through the Looking Glass illustrating this:

"Is it very long?" Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.

"It's long," said the [White] Knight, "but it's very, very beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it - either it brings the tears into their eyes, or else -"

"Or else what?" said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.

"Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called 'Haddock's Eyes'."

"Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?" Alice said, trying to feel interested.

"No, you don't understand," the Knight said, looking a little vexed. "That's what the name is called. The name really is 'The Aged Aged Man'."

"Then I ought to have said 'That's what the song is called?'" Alice corrected herself.

"No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The song is called 'Ways and Means': but that's only what it's called, you know!"

"Well, what is the song, then?" said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

"I was coming to that," the Knight said. "The song really is 'A-sitting on a Gate': and the tune's my own invention."


Martin Gardner's annotations point out that the claim beginning "The song really is" is illogical, because its object is merely another name. To be consistent, the White Knight should have actually sung the song at this point.

For a Lojban translation, see [1], with the inevitable flame from Ivan Derzhanski: [2] (echoing a similar flame by pc: [3]).

Retrieved from "https://mw-live.lojban.org/index.php?title=White_Knight%27s_Song_Gotcha&oldid=121987"