krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > gleki wrote: > > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > How to say "that cat is dead and alive" then? If predicates then > > > place > > > > > > structures must be signed probably > > > > > > > > > > While I do not really know how it would be used in contexts other > > than > > > > on > > > > > predicates or maybe somehow with states or other specific objects, > I > > > > think > > > > > that it is probably best to keep the syntactic functionality > > identical > > > > to > > > > > that of "joi" and let the user figure it out for themself by > means > > > of > > > > > the basic language structure. (It potentially gets complicated if > > the > > > > base > > > > > form of this word is restricted to working on only predicates). > > > Perhaps > > > > > someone will eventually be able to come up with examples of other > > > usages > > > > - > > > > > I do not want to keep them from being able to do that in my > hubris. > > :) > > > > > > > > How would you yourself say that "the cat is dead and alive" in > > lojban? > > > > > > "lo mlatu cu jmive gi bo'a'oi morsi", I would think/propose. > > > > > > Assumptions: > > > * By "and", you mean "superposition" in the present sense. > > > * Right now, I am using MAD Proposal #2 ( > > > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lojban/ExtEumbYoQg ) in order > to > > > allow for "gi joi" as an afterthought bridi-tail nonlogical > connective. > > > This is for clarity and utility. > > > > > > > > > Without that last assumption, it would be: > > > "lo mlatu cu bo'a'oi gi jmive gi morsi". > > > ("The cat is superpositionally-both alive and dead"). > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > > > > Re-emphasizing/clarifying: I do not know how "bo'a'oi" would be used > in > > > other positions, but I can conceive of it being possible. > > > > Is connective useful here at all? Maybe cunso instead specifying > > distribution of values? > > Can you show me how would you do so? :)
i le mlatu cu cunso le nu ri nau zvati ti vau la sicni
> > I am not sure that it is useful, but I think that it might be - at least > in certain contexts.
Sure. I just wonder if undefined probability distribution in bo'a'oi is okay in popularizing science.
> My basic goal is to give Lojban an actually correct > way by which to easily, naturally express the Schrodinger cat paradox and > other such things. Superposition is a very particular sort of mixing or > combining. > > Here is an example of "bo'a'oi" being used on sumti: > "lo boxna be fi fy ku bo'a'oi gy cu se tarmi lo sumji be fy bei gy" = "A > wave of waveform f superposed-with g is in the shape of the sum of f and > g". > > > One could also say something like "the electric field at this point is the > superposition of electric fields E_1, …, E_n at the same point" or "the > electric field at this point is the sum of the electric fields E_1, …, E_n > at the same point". The last is closer to the mathematical formulation of > the phenomenon, but the former is an alternative, normal-speech way of > expressing it. In the former, if "superposition" is a selbri, then E_1, …, > E_n would have to be supplied as arguments somehow (via "ce", a terbri > structure like that of "sumji" (but possibly open-ended), or maybe ".(ku > j)e", although the last one might be as malgli as would be using the same > construct for "he and she carried the piano" (use "joi" instead)). In any > case, an alternative would be simply to say something with E_1 bo'a'oi E2 > bo'a'oi … bo'a'oi E_n; in fact, this option would not even require the > definition of a net electric field E=E_1 + … + E_n either explicitly or > implicitly via "lo sumji be E_1 bei lo sumji be E_2 bei … bei lo sumji be > E_(n-1) bei E_n", which clearly will save the user a lot of effort.
|