From rmcivor@xxxxxxxx.xxxx Thu Dec 2 07:46:45 1999
X-Digest-Num: 300
Message-ID: <44114.300.1630.959273825@eGroups.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 10:46:45 -0500
From: "Robert A. McIvor" To say in E that
>
>1) John knows who came.
>
>is to say that
>
>2) John knows the identity of, i.e, another name for, everyone who came.
>
>and not merely that, as one of the lojbi put it, that
>
>3) For each x that came, John knows that x came.
>
>(2), logified, means that
>
>4) For every x such that x came there is a y such that John knows that x is
>y.
>
>This implies that to "know the identity of someone x" is to be able to put
>another designation to x. If so, then this goes into L very neatly as
>
>5) Raba ji pa kamla gui be goi la Djan ga djano supo ba bi be.
>
>Any problems with this? To make it easier, here's the back-trat:
>
>6) For every x that came there is a y such that John knows at least one
>case of x being y.
>
>And this certainly doesn't mean that D knows who didn't come!
>
>Jelhaisto!
>
co'o mi'e bab
>Hue Djim
>