From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Mar 15 14:35:43 2010 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:35:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NrHws-00039k-CF for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:35:42 -0700 Received: from mail-gy0-f181.google.com ([209.85.160.181]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1NrHwl-000387-P3 for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:35:39 -0700 Received: by gyh20 with SMTP id 20so926424gyh.40 for ; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=RhufydNB1n13AlQ/89y3M7Wj5q+RMWB6O6AkbxL+prQ=; b=lP0/KiZdSFKneUXNmMg99EmJlRaBbt+DZd2BPlYA6u67FwT/Fr7TxbowE26LCUJbeY JK4A9XXCxSOvwAyzJKL2xgyzzcyk66NgivSqVd5LRyAQjEPU607JDMv7VME0iGLOrTDN oTkMuONWSGfb2OTy8X3ATNnQGQsuyk3UYm5uw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=V9BNT/qp2QBq552Dvp1eewaTeg0HhY0dG2+Hjt3dsHwjt/pUrWQNgYBTN2JNmha2vV pWnNqJnRnc7nWHOwEXlVD6nT9bc4GwkCARvyE8WQxCOjAP7eLds8GQHqV/T0RDYJZYnY ctvU7D/vNZltONnm+t587vz4WQYxVmoS27YQo= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.101.129.13 with SMTP id g13mr1087156ann.30.1268688929309; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:35:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <96f789a61003151223y40cbd6a8s8c0a5041d89ffcb0@mail.gmail.com> References: <4de8c3931003130452v3473ee1ei70da65f022ac2b1b@mail.gmail.com> <5715b9301003131245n23c64a7emfa56bccba3799045@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003131607v64d15ae1u29c42305e114c48a@mail.gmail.com> <201003132351.36353.phma@phma.optus.nu> <925d17561003140741o4dda967cn5da839d5f69fdeb2@mail.gmail.com> <1f1080831003150959g65a0df85ve65508bc16cbdb0f@mail.gmail.com> <925d17561003151014p415766a4n310d69d20b72bac7@mail.gmail.com> <16d9defd1003151126j12806949q6f3b676b05ed35ac@mail.gmail.com> <16d9defd1003151137mba5fc38lba8b846c6faac933@mail.gmail.com> <96f789a61003151223y40cbd6a8s8c0a5041d89ffcb0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:35:29 -0400 Message-ID: <1f1080831003151435u2d8df14eo26bb0a4f60a33c2@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: How versatile is "nu"? From: Ian Johnson To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6d27642f643130481dda8fc X-archive-position: 3011 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: blindbravado@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org X-list: lojban-beginners --0016e6d27642f643130481dda8fc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Incidentally, I don't quite understand why "truth value" shouldn't come up in conversation once you're using a short term like {jei}, which is considerably less cumbersome and IMO more straightforward than the alternative, especially in a language which has part of its basis in classical logic. mu'omi'e .latros. On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Michael Turniansky wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:37 PM, chris kerr > wrote: > > Actually, is having {jei} redundant in this sense? Is there ever a > > time when you need "the truth value of" and "whether" won't do? > > > > Of course there is. Consider, for example, all those Smullyanesque > logic puzzles, where the answer is something like, "If I were to ask > you if the truth value of your answer is the same as the truth value > of "The dragon behind the second door?", what would you say?" > > --gejyspa > > > > --0016e6d27642f643130481dda8fc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Incidentally, I don't quite understand why "truth value" shou= ldn't come up in conversation once you're using a short term like {= jei}, which is considerably less cumbersome and IMO more straightforward th= an the alternative, especially in a language which has part of its basis in= classical logic.

mu'omi'e .latros.

On Mon, Mar= 15, 2010 at 3:23 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 2:37 PM, chris kerr <letsclimbhigher@gmail.com> wro= te:
> Actually, is having {jei} redundant in this sense? Is there ever a
> time when you need "the truth value of" and "whether&qu= ot; won't do?
>

=A0Of course there is. =A0Consider, for example, all those Smullyane= sque
logic puzzles, where the answer is something like, "If I were to ask you if the truth value of your answer is the same as the truth value
of "The dragon behind the second door?", what would you say?"= ;

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0--gejyspa




--0016e6d27642f643130481dda8fc--