- Home
- Get A Printable Dictionary
- Search Best Words
- Recent Changes
- How You Can Help
- valsi - All
- valsi - Preferred Only
- natlang - All
- natlang - Preferred Only
- Languages
- XML Export
- user Listing
- Report Bugs
- Utilities
- Status
- Help
- Admin Request
- Create Account
|
Discussion of "bo'a'oi"
[parent]
[root]
Comment #1:
Should be applied to sumti, clauses or predicates?
|
gleki (Mon May 20 14:29:34 2019)
|
How to say "that cat is dead and alive" then? If predicates then place structures must be signed probably
|
-
Comment #2:
Re: Should be applied to sumti, clauses or predicates?
|
Curtis W Franks (Wed May 22 13:50:38 2019)
|
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. :)
|
-
Comment #3:
Re: Should be applied to sumti, clauses or predicates?
|
gleki (Wed May 22 16:01:15 2019)
|
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?
|
-
Comment #4:
Re: Should be applied to sumti, clauses or predicates?
|
Curtis W Franks (Thu May 23 14:15:40 2019)
|
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.
|
-
Comment #5:
Re: Should be applied to sumti, clauses or predicates?
|
gleki (Thu May 23 14:27:34 2019)
|
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?
|
-
Comment #6:
Re: Should be applied to sumti, clauses or predicates?
|
Curtis W Franks (Thu May 23 17:48:57 2019)
|
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 am not sure that it is useful, but I think that it might be - at least in certain contexts. 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.
|
-
Comment #7:
Re: Should be applied to sumti, clauses or predicates?
|
gleki (Fri May 24 09:24:45 2019)
|
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.
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|