Received: from mail-pz0-f61.google.com ([209.85.210.61]:33840)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOTEtqyUDhCYzYT0BBoEWHcdUA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1R8MSn-0003Z7-Ef; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:28:14 -0700
Received: by pzk32 with SMTP id 32sf5914019pzk.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:27:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references
         :mime-version:content-type:content-disposition:in-reply-to:x-pgp-key
         :x-pgp-keyid:x-cunselcu'a-valsi:user-agent:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe;
        bh=T3daRr4AYdTQdiEhFXbns7HS2rlyhn3v3O+dik1loGk=;
        b=HI774E0qRgmRmoIxc7tfNwEiPw2Y3dhdrUlj7kM3+YyawVQYHBsYfePKJg5M6bmMe9
         REwQ1dJRMQBC+7G/KLBpnTTh5tUosj9ysEMic3dSWO3v/XBYQYLeuL6yw9xkGLV9IyoJ
         r4fEJuk5w/12jY4qyS6IkQ7Q+8Yv1RAfYMtyQ=
Received: by 10.68.15.196 with SMTP id z4mr3253456pbc.14.1317086872776;
        Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.68.120.168 with SMTP id ld8ls103428pbb.7.gmail; Mon, 26 Sep
 2011 18:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.11.199 with SMTP id s7mr26046504pbb.5.1317086872033;
        Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.68.11.199 with SMTP id s7mr26046503pbb.5.1317086872022;
        Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sdf.lonestar.org (mx.sdf.org. [192.94.73.19])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kr11si14963057pbb.1.2011.09.26.18.27.51
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:27:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=192.94.73.19;
Received: from gonzales.homelinux.org (root@sverige.freeshell.org [192.94.73.4])
	by sdf.lonestar.org (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p8R1RpJc012598
	for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 27 Sep 2011 01:27:51 GMT
Received: from martin by gonzales.homelinux.org with local (Exim 4.75)
	(envelope-from <mbays@sdf.org>)
	id 1R8MSd-00010D-1X
	for lojban@googlegroups.com; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:27:51 -0400
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:27:51 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] {zo'e} as close-scope existentially quantified plural variable
Message-ID: <20110927012751.GK22625@gonzales>
References: <CAO7tK2cAG0okZRcop0CiHTs0f-HsS-PmKkQb1ZwiWBDOLMDXQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1316535587.5338.YahooMailRC@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <20110921000757.GR4310@gonzales>
 <1316618218.15694.YahooMailRC@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <20110922234555.GB24443@gonzales>
 <1316736086.52889.YahooMailRC@web81307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
 <20110924150246.GA4576@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2dNOSWyXBDzq3KSSqMsUx8f81vNtKugSCV0z_-VNCQFVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110925153046.GB4576@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2cQNh5p2FhTJnniK_Pb_KOMYrDvvpCSPrk97yTomAXq5A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="dxRQSzdsN/lOP445"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2cQNh5p2FhTJnniK_Pb_KOMYrDvvpCSPrk97yTomAXq5A@mail.gmail.com>
X-PGP-Key: http://mbays.freeshell.org/pubkey.asc
X-PGP-KeyId: B5FB2CD6
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: mukti
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 best guess record for domain of mbays@sdf.org designates 192.94.73.19 as
 permitted sender) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /


--dxRQSzdsN/lOP445
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Monday, 2011-09-26 at 19:31 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.co=
m>:

> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > Would you even agree that, in the case that we have a predication
> > P(k1,k2) about kinds k1, k2
>=20
> (which is already in your Nirvana form)

Yes

> > which correspond to properties Q1(X), Q2(X),
> > and if the predication resolves existentially in all variables, then it
> > resolves as in the subject line of this thread, i.e. to
> > =A0 =A0EX (X1,X2). (C(X1,X2) /\ P(X1,X2))
> > where C is a context-glorked relation which depends on any quantifiers
> > (including ones over worlds) which the current predication is in the
> > scope of, and which is such that C(X1,X2) implies Q1(X1)/\Q2(X2)?
> >
> > (X, X1, X2 all plural mundane variables, i.e. not allowed to take kinds,
> > but not restricted to atoms)
>=20
> That would seem to be the definition of "resolves existentially",
> right? If you can find a new model in which what you expressed in
> terms of kinds can be reexpressed in terms of an existential
> quantification over the manifestations of the kinds, then we say that
> the predication about kinds in the original model "resolves
> existentially" in the new model.

I meant to ask whether you agree that this is the right form for that
existential quantification, when it does resolve to one.

> >> Where we seem to desagree is in thinking that this "resolution" is
> >> somehow a necessary step in the interpretation of the original
> >> predication. You seem to be saying that a domain of discourse that
> >> includes a kind but not its instances is somehow defective.
> >
> > Yes, I think so. "lions are in my garden" and "one or more lions are in
> > my garden" are equivalent - one is true iff the other is. Our formalism
> > should reflect that. So a model in which it holds of the kind Lion that
> > =A0 =A0in(Lion, my garden)
> > it should also hold that
> > =A0 =A0EX l. (lion(l) /\ in(l, my garden))
> > , and vice-versa.
>=20
> No, because you don't have lion instances in the first model, so the
> second one doesn't hold in that model. You have a different model for
> each of the sentences that are truth value equivalent.

But forgetting about the formalism for a second, surely you'd agree that
"lions are in my garden" is logically equivalent to "one or more lions
are in my garden" in every reasonable sense? In particular, that you can
deduce each from the other?

It's part of the basic underlying theory of english semantics, if you
like.

If we have models where this equivalence fails, like the one you mention
which has Lion but no lion instances, then our models are failing to
model this basic underlying theory.

It's in that sense that I'd consider them deficient.

> [snip stages explanation]
> > Since there's no new object like a kind involved, there's no need for
> > any new axioms which acceptable models must satisfy.
>=20
> The object analogous to the kind is none other than John himself. The
> stages of John, dispersed along the time dimension, are analogous to
> the manifestations of the kind, dispersed througout space.
>=20
> > If we made "sometimes wise" into a single predicate "sometimes-wise",
> > then we would want to make it an axiom that it agrees with "sometimes
> > wise"; that's vaguely analogous to the case of kinds. Is that the kind
> > of thing you mean?
>=20
> Kind of. I'm comparing a predicate that may apply to some of the
> time-stages of John but not necessarily to all, with a predicate that
> may apply to some of the space-manifestations of a kind, but not
> necessarily to all.

OK, thanks, I see the analogy now.

So in response to your original remark

> >> (But at the same time you have no objection to domains that include
> >> an individual but not its stages, although there are analogous
> >> types of predications about individuals that can be resolved as
> >> existential quantification over stages.

: yes, were we to have a setup like the one you sketch above, then
just as with kinds, a model in which "John sat there" is true had better
have an actual John-stage which actually sits there.

The only reason that I wasn't raising this objection was because
I wasn't assuming a setup with stages.

Unless you really think it's necessary, I'd prefer to avoid getting into
the details of handling space and time for now. But briefly: I'm
currently thinking we should handle neither with the stage approach, and
rather both with the worlds approach (so a "world" would actually be
a co-ordinate (possible world, time, space)). An argument for another
day, perhaps!

Martin

--dxRQSzdsN/lOP445
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk6BJpYACgkQULC7OLX7LNb2DQCfTrmxmwyerJu4LAu9eZ+WCMos
QjEAnR23JZcH6lWIqqJCpgz3zshvU4Iv
=3kZY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--dxRQSzdsN/lOP445--