Received: from mail-vc0-f190.google.com ([209.85.220.190]:59675) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1XulZL-0001rk-U3; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:12:30 -0800 Received: by mail-vc0-f190.google.com with SMTP id hy4sf1204744vcb.27 for ; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:12:21 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=i1eHZmOhHSdzo0jVc+L5Ha3KbZKHd9GA9eMyGU8OpFs=; b=hNtXkszoH0iTazUd/dyD8sDGZAO5AZ26ViQ5KkGl4Or1ma/270dOwtzpPRFwNyaDMB ixIwp8QFr7/CKfWOEfB90FZKJESoLRY8eMkbUhTbtEq5ExZFeeEfaq7/HCse6rqYawii 3+aWQlHLIt8ZtYnTaPSfrW9OVOt7W3sfJ8MzyknlnGZjmqXlLR0UlCKjO5F3HebBkPc3 9Ojfomj7occDTeK2rPV+VT56AWQnhRRO7Q3jcUw7suR6l6Wt+ElbZt/bsJ0sQNHYFQAR AcPHPV/GVFEijuE4ORU9btjYvAtzXaF9cwRwcPhp4L5DTJTx+Y5hxq49gsm+ZQklWcsT yVqg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=i1eHZmOhHSdzo0jVc+L5Ha3KbZKHd9GA9eMyGU8OpFs=; b=HBdJX9ANAuwDVDw6Udk+JP66fYm8ZgCih8xfs6gyRHLzlo8uCsrLP+0Kqdf/5AbCBC L3aQ6Noa9Bzs6yyHJtiWKxGWN/pDLk5PIX71UXWd8xf5WhqC/8kQN2lI2yqX/eBweAjw o683msp7nRhqZy1h/ujmT8jY4SgGWi5nQNCOlxANKoSIjxam9xbrxMlvQ/ddMMWSkha3 b7EpYV3HTCs42Jri0XKOKpIGxQEUb+UtVibiSZJFIGgcWnRFKdrst4HN8WnmsNsQumsu xnKGiRto6704TLvBTZqqthFpCCL7F2qpQIDcsUC5xjMcUmr8i4un507WyR0+IOmhvJGq SgWg== X-Received: by 10.182.181.35 with SMTP id dt3mr1958obc.19.1417281141348; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:12:21 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.182.125.100 with SMTP id mp4ls1429902obb.19.gmail; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:12:21 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.182.216.202 with SMTP id os10mr92598obc.8.1417281141076; Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:12:21 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 29 Nov 2014 09:12:19 -0800 (PST) From: mukti To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <72cc5d1d-d442-4b70-9552-d5d407498ffe@googlegroups.com> References: <20141018011419.GF12268@mercury.ccil.org> <97AABFB42A204E5D97A4EDFEA57A8508@gmail.com> <20141019012930.GF12991@mercury.ccil.org> <676B49242B0D4F6A986D6AFEA1EB3B3C@gmail.com> <20141019170808.GJ12991@mercury.ccil.org> <20141109004632.GL6360@mercury.ccil.org> <54620A89.6060205@gmail.com> <72cc5d1d-d442-4b70-9552-d5d407498ffe@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [bpfk] {ro}, existential import and De Morgan MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_7191_24913598.1417281139860" X-Original-Sender: shunpiker@gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- ------=_Part_7191_24913598.1417281139860 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_7192_2111014068.1417281139860" ------=_Part_7192_2111014068.1417281139860 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I'm a fan of the "unofficial commentary" on the gadri, and would be interested in reading another such treatment of this distinction -- between the language and the model. The idea that the language need not be committed to a particular model appeals to me: There seems to have been a lot of argumentation about which model is "better" -- whether "better" is understood as more intuitive, closer to natural language usage, more in tune with modern/traditional logic, etc. Perhaps it's the undecidable nature of such arguments which led John Cowan to predict that there would be no resolution to my original questions. I'm not inclined to accept that no resolution is possible: It seems to me that there is sufficient general agreement to ensure that subsequent descriptions of the language handle this issue in such a way as to address the concerns that have been raised in the past. I welcome guskant's offer to elaborate such a proposal. mi'e la mukti mu'o On Sunday, November 23, 2014 10:44:22 PM UTC-6, guskant wrote: > > From a theoretical point of view, Chapter 16 of CLL describes something > out of a language. As long as it introduces a theory on truth value, it is > a kind of model theory. The problems regarding the current text of Chapter > 16 are caused by two points: > > 1-1. It does not make clear the distinction between a language and a model; > 1-2. It mixes up several models (of Aristotle and of a classical predicate > logic guessing from the previous discussion of the current thread) without > making clear which model each statement is based on. > > My idea to improve the text of Chapter 16 consists of three points: > > 2-1. Assert first that Lojban is a language, and that this chapter > describes some models that can be expressed by Lojban. > 2-2. Explain mainly a model based on the classical first-order predicate > logic, because this model is most widely used in modern scientific theories. > 2-3. However, emphasize that Lojban can do more, including intuitionistic > logic, modal logic, multivalued logic, higher-order logic etc. (Actually I > spoke to philisophers on this idea last year in Japanese : > http://youtu.be/lzqhNYCWKLo?list=UU0k-Re5fyJXl4bGKSJLpkSA > I am very sorry for not yet translating it into English. You will find > some traces of the speech also in la jbovlaste, for example > http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/bu'ai .) We _can_ take even a model > aristotelian, though the model is too weak to be applied for modern > sciences. > > If some of you agree to my idea, I will prepare an unofficial version of > Chapter 16 of CLL, just like I did for xorlo gadri ( > http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=gadri:+an+unofficial+commentary+from+a+logical+point+of+view > ) but trying to write in easier style to be understood by non-logicians. > > pei 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 email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ------=_Part_7192_2111014068.1417281139860 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'm a fan of the "unofficial commentary" on the gadri, and= would be interested in reading another such treatment of this distinction = -- between the language and the model.

The idea that the langu= age need not be committed to a particular model appeals to me: There seems = to have been a lot of argumentation about which model is "better" -- whethe= r "better" is understood as more intuitive, closer to natural language usag= e, more in tune with modern/traditional logic, etc. Perhaps it's the undeci= dable nature of such arguments which led John Cowan to predict that there w= ould be no resolution to my original questions.

I'm not inclined to accept that no resolution is possible: It seems to me= that there is sufficient general agreement to ensure that subsequent descr= iptions of the language handle this issue in such a way as to address the c= oncerns that have been raised in the past. I welcome guskant's offer to ela= borate such a proposal.

mi'e la mukti mu'o


On Sunday, November 23, 2014 10:44:22 PM UTC-6, guska= nt wrote:
From a theoretical point of view, Chapter 16 of CLL describes something ou= t of a language. As long as it introduces a theory on truth value, it is a = kind of model theory. The problems regarding the current text of Chapter 16= are caused by two points:

1-1. It does not make c= lear the distinction between a language and a model;
1-2. It mixe= s up several models (of Aristotle and of a classical predicate logic guessi= ng from the previous discussion of the current thread) without making clear= which model each statement is based on.

My idea t= o improve the text of Chapter 16 consists of three points:

2-1. Assert first that Lojban is a language, and that this chapter= describes some models that can be expressed by Lojban.
2-2. Expl= ain mainly a model based on the classical first-order predicate logic, beca= use this model is most widely used in modern scientific theories.
2-3. However, emphasize that Lojban can do more, including intuitionistic = logic, modal logic, multivalued logic, higher-order logic etc. (Actually I = spoke to philisophers on this idea last year in Japanese : http://youtu.be/lzqhNYCW= KLo?list=3DUU0k-Re5fyJXl4bGKSJLpkSA
I am very sorry for = not yet translating it into English. You will find some traces of the speec= h also in la jbovlaste, for example http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/bu'ai = .) We _can_ take even a model aristotelian, though the model is too weak to= be applied for modern sciences.

If some of you ag= ree to my idea, I will prepare an unofficial version of Chapter 16 of CLL, = just like I did for xorlo gadri (http://www.lojban.org/t= iki/tiki-index.php?page=3Dgadri:+an+unofficial+commentary+from+a+= logical+point+of+view ) but trying to write in easier style to be = understood by non-logicians.

pei mu'o

--
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.
------=_Part_7192_2111014068.1417281139860-- ------=_Part_7191_24913598.1417281139860--