From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Sep 27 14:12:54 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 27 Sep 2002 21:12:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 86944 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 21:12:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 27 Sep 2002 21:12:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n12.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.67) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 21:12:54 -0000 Received: from [66.218.67.139] by n12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 27 Sep 2002 21:12:52 -0000 Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 21:12:52 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: On what there isn't Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <5a.124d96ed.2ac5ef52@aol.com> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2388 X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster From: "jjllambias2000" X-Originating-IP: 200.49.74.2 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la pycyn cusku di'e > {roda zasti} is a Lojban tautology -- and is unexpressible in normal formal > logic, where it is incorporated into the symbolism. Well, {zasti} has two reference places for lack of one. {roda zasti de di} seems like a truth, but I'm not sure I would call it a tautology. On the other hand {roda zasti rode rodi} is almost certainly false. I would use {roda du} for the tautology. > We begin by distinguishing between nuclear and extra-nuclear properties and > relations. This presentation seems to have some things in common with my proto-predicates, which would correspond to the extra-nuclear relations. > While the line is often fuzzy, we can point to some cases of > clearly extranuclear predicates, mostly old problematic ones: ontological > ones like "exists" or "is fictional," modal like "is possible," intensional > like "is thought about by Parsons," My proto-predicates for these would be: x1 is the property of something that exists. x1 is the property of something fictional. x1 is the property of something possible. x1 is the property of something thought about by Parsons. >and siome new new that arise within the > system itself like "is complete." Most other properties are neclear (at > least until proven otherwise) and, further, every extranuclear property has a > "watered down" version which is nuclear. The way I see it, every normal predicate (nuclear) has its corresponding proto-predicate (non-nuclear), but it is clear that some non-nuclears would be called into use more often than others. > Interestingly, relations in this > theory are composed of properties, ! >what we would call the various ways of > plugging the relation, filling all the places but one with particulars. That > aRb holds is then the conjunction of the claims that a has the property of > being R to b and that b has the property of being Rd by a. This would go something like this with protopredicates: ko'a broda ko'e = ko'a kairbroda le ka ce'u du ko'e ije ko'e se kairselbroda le ka ce'u du ko'a > Thus, though Holmes might have the proprety of being knighted > by Queen Victoria, Queen Victoria does not have the property of having > knighted Holmes (though her surrogate would). i la xolmyz cu se nolgau lo'e glico nolraitru i ku'i no glico nolraitru cu nolgau la xolmyz mu'o mi'e xorxes