From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jul 03 06:51:45 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:51:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KEPDt-0001FD-Jc for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:51:45 -0700 Received: from narnia.blumen-schwarz.de ([80.190.195.21]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KEPDi-0001EX-WB for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 06:51:45 -0700 Received: from n5832.n.pppool.de ([89.50.88.50]) by narnia.blumen-schwarz.de with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1KEPDS-00005G-AQ for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:51:27 +0200 From: namor To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Implications of partly negated, commutative logical connections Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:55:30 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <200807030148.13022.eldrikdo@gmail.com> <925d17560807021744w39184ea4ie59d2eb8173f9b3e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <925d17560807021744w39184ea4ie59d2eb8173f9b3e@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807031555.37662.eldrikdo@gmail.com> X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: ------------- Start der SpamAssassin Auswertung --------------- Bei Fragen dazu bitte das Forum life.d.cvmx verwenden! Details der Inhaltsanalyse: (-1.8 Punkte, 5.0 benoetigt) -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Nachricht wurde nur über vertrauenswürdige Rechner weitergeleitet 2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit nach Bayes-Test: 40-60% [score: 0.4203] -2.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list ---------------- Ende der SpamAssassin Auswertung ----------------- X-Spam-Score: 1.2 X-Spam-Score-Int: 12 X-Spam-Bar: + X-archive-position: 671 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: eldrikdo@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners Am Donnerstag 03 Juli 2008 02:44:40 schrieb Jorge Llambías: > Try: > > It is true that I like you if it is true that you love me. > > It is true that you love me only if it is true that I like you. Yeah, this sounds much better. Just adding a 'it is true that' to the translation of each bridi denies the effect-cause relation. Strange natlangs. :-) > To talk about causality, don't use logical connectives. For example: > > mi nelci do .imu'ibo do prami mi > I like you because you love me. > > da'i mi nelci do .iva'obo da'i do prami mi > I would like you if you would love me. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes I see. If I understand right, commutative logical connections with one side negated are mainly useful for observations in which you don't want to make any claims about causality. {za'a le prenu cu gelki gi'anai citka} I observe, It is true that the person is happy if it is true that the person eats I observe, It is true that the person eats only if it is true that the person is happy At first, one might think this is wrong, the English sentence "The person's happy if it eats" makes you think the person's eating is a cause of it's happiness. But in fact, you only observed that the person is never not-happy if she eats. So it is wrong to make claims about causality, for the eating could cause the happiness, or the happiness could cause the eating. If I got it right, the only difference to IFF/O connections is, that the not negated bridi (part without na/nai) in the OR/A connection can be true even if the other part is false. So, if you observe both bridi all time and notice their truth values to be always same, you can use an IFF/O connection. If you only observe the truth-value of bridi A all the time, but observe the truth-value of bridi B only while observing the one of bridi A at the same time (, but don't observe the truth-value of bridi B always!) (, and observe that if you observe both values at the same time, they are identical), then you should use a OR/O connection with the part negated, which you observe all the time. For instance, you observe a friend is happy whenever he's with you: {[za'a] le mi pendo cu gleki .gi'anai kansa mi} It is true my friend is happy if it is true that he is with me It is true that my friend is with me only if it is true he is happy Maybe the friend a very happy person and always happy, we cannot know and do not claim this to be true or false. Is the view on OR/A connections with one side negated right? (ni'oru'e) Is there a way to weaken a connection to something like: 'not always, but often/much of the time', the connection is true? -- mu'o mi'e la namor e la'oi Rumpelstilzchen .i mi to'e djica lonu mi miptera