Tec= hnicality: the original question should be whether {ro broda cu brode} impl= ies {su'o da broda}, correct?

mu'o mi'e la durka

=20

On Friday, October 17, 2014 at= 5:55 AM, Riley Martinez-Lynch wrote:

In researching a question on the mailing list, I came across discussions= of the question of whether {ro} has "existential import" -- which is to sa= y, does a true proposition {ro broda cu brode} imply that {su'o broda cu br= ode} is also true? CLL 16.8 says:
"Lojban universal claims always imply th= e corresponding existential claims as well."
Which is to= say, {ro} has existential import. This is the position of classic/Aristote= lian logic, but not modern logic.

It was been pointed out that the documentation of negation boundaries is= not consistent with this interpretation of ro. Take these examples from CL= L 16.11, which are said to be equivalent:
{naku roda poi verba cu klama su= 'ode poi ckule} (16.11.7)
{su'oda poi verba ku'o naku k= lama su'ode poi ckule} (16.11.4, {ku'o}-corrected per errata)
Now let's simplify the examples, replacing the students with unicorns= -- there's a tradition of talking about unicorns when considering this que= stion:
{naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi} =3D=3D {su'o pavyseljirna naku = cu blabi}
Given that {ro} has import, and assuming for t= he sake of argument that the universe has no unicorns to quantify, {ro pavy= seljirna cu blabi} is false, and therefore, {naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi}= is true.

However, {su'o pavyseljirna naku cu blabi} is false, since there are no = unicorns to predicate with {blabi}, affirmatively or negatively. The truth = value of the proposition has changed despite the assurance that moving the = negation boundary and "inverting" the quantifiers accordingly is supposed t= o preserve the meaning. Some have argued that this shows a violation of De = Morgan's laws.

The anomaly does not occur if {ro} is not held to import. In that case, = {ro pavyseljirna cu blabi} is true, {naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi} is fals= e, and {su'o pavyseljirna naku cu blabi} is also false.

This question was discussed extensively from 2002-2003, which is to say,= during the BPFK's formative period. There seems to have been near-consensus that {ro} should not be held to impo= rt, but there were also emphatic dissents from John Cowan and pc.

I saw indications of an expectation that BPFK would ultimately decide th= e question, but I have been unable to find a record that the question was d= iscussed or that a decision was taken.The BPFK section on "Inexact Numbers"= includes a link in the "Issues" section to the 2003 discussion, but otherw= ise -- as far as I can discern -- takes no clear position.
Can an= yone show me where and how this problem was resolved? Failing that, would a= nyone care to take this up and once and for all settle the matter?
mi= 'e la mukti mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.

=20 =20 =20 =20

=20

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--544187de_1d9f6e5f_320--