From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 02 09:37:24 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Thu, 02 Dec 2004 09:37:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1CZutQ-0006ch-4U for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Thu, 02 Dec 2004 09:37:24 -0800 Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 09:37:24 -0800 To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: Where can I learn more about logic? Message-ID: <20041202173724.GK25791@chain.digitalkingdom.org> References: <200412021435.iB2EZmIP000408@mole.e-mol.com> <20041202150536.78998.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> <200412021621.iB2GLHIP012264@mole.e-mol.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200412021621.iB2GLHIP012264@mole.e-mol.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040722i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 921 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 11:21:17AM -0500, Matt Arnold wrote: > It astonishes me that a Lojbanist would write ?[Ix]( Gx & [Ay](Fy > <=> y=x))? on a Lojban website of all things, when it's possible > to say it in Lojban instead. PC doesn't actually speak Lojban. He also believes that Lojban is not sufficiently precise in this arena. > That having been said, jbofi'e returned a syntax error on your > string. Erk. Let me go figure that out, because it looks fine to me. *Oh*. Can't have a zo'u clause after at "i je", because the previous zo'u clause carries through and you'd essentially be over-riding it. Easiest way to fix: su'o da zo'u da broda i je ro de brode i jo de du da > But I've translated it as follows. > > Take it for a given that there exists this one thing. At least one. > Whatever that may be, it is in such-and-such a relationship. Also, > each of whatever the second thing is. OK now take all that stuff > as a given as well. That second thing, is in this other > such-and-such a relationship, Full stop here. Add "The above is all true" > if-and-only-if the second thing shares the exact same identity > with the first thing. > > As I learned Lojban vocabulary, I long ago passed up "zo'u" since > "end prenex" means absolutely nothing to me and I thought it was > specialized expertise that would not be useful in normal language. Well, that's generally true. It ends definition of logical terms. It also terminates the topic in a topic-comment sentence, like "lo zdani zo'u mi klama" == "The house: I go", which mirrors Chinese sentence structure, apparently. > Have I translated it correctly as taking something as a given or > an axiom? Close enough. > Even if not, I'm a whole heck of a lot closer to > figuring it out from Lojban than I would be with ?[Ix]( Gx & > [Ay](Fy <=> y=x))?. That's very cool. Thanks! -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/