[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: <jboske@yahoogroups.com>*Subject*: RE: [jboske] Quantifiers and lo/loi*From*: "And Rosta" <a.rosta@lycos.co.uk>*Date*: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 02:44:51 -0000*Importance*: Normal*In-reply-to*: <F148Lzqxf30qXpbA0jA000204c6@hotmail.com>

xorxes: > la and cusku di'e > > >An XS solution not incompatible with SL is to say that > >quantifiers are underlyingly of the form {PA fi'u roPA}, > >but that bits of the expression can be omitted and left > >to glorking > > I like that very much, but I'm not sure about the compatibility > if fractionals in SL are supposed to be sizes of bits and not > true quantification over bits There is not necessarily any "supposed to be", so long as we can tell a story that is not downright inconsistent with CLL. (I am of course discussing the BF solution here.) As for fractionals and loi, there are various possible stories. Regarding loi, the story could be that it is simply the form that gadri take when quantified by a fractional. Or the story could be that it means that it has cardinality &-ma'u (= the number of jbomasses, not the number of constituents of the jbomass). With regard to the fractional, either it quantifies over bits, in which case {piPA loi} would be short for {Q lo(i) piPA loi} (i.e. a jbomass containing piPA bits of), or else (which is incompatible with loi = thing of cardinality &-ma'u) it really is a cardinality and means "a piPA of a single", in which case it would be short for {vei pimu ve'o fi'u ro}. I don't think we should rush into decisions among these possibilities -- things have been too frenetic here & need to settle down for a bit. But my general point is that, thanks to Nick's work, it seems to me possible to construct a gadri system consistent with some interpretation of CLL yet also internally consistent and comparatively nonarbitrary. --And.

**References**:**RE: [jboske] Quantifiers and lo/loi***From:*"Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: OT: Quine; Cantor (was Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic)** - Next by Date:
**Re: OT: Quine; Cantor (was Re: [jboske] Aristotelian vs. modern logic)** - Previous by thread:
**RE: [jboske] Quantifiers and lo/loi** - Next by thread:
**New Ontology** - Index(es):