Received: from mail-wi0-f189.google.com ([209.85.212.189]:35767)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDF0P3_BBoErP_3lg@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1SpTWG-0005hj-UD; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:14:09 -0700
Received: by wibhr14 with SMTP id hr14sf35099wib.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to: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:content-type;
        bh=O0agRCuy/F9QDDoJy0s9+oUdp3JmUAKDKocX3PJS55Q=;
        b=CKIE/HqWxpBK3T1AwfAgc8/7/HWc4KXTxhIdv0JENn9V/toG9iePUWusIoK2xR28qK
         +rXbS8V/7wefrFSnbX5PzAaRjj48Th7e7b01ePO6xPU9C2kgki3kKLPC3AwGnDrUkTwU
         ZTmfIx9sS4II7M73bQWFstFXuWj+JI/IhoLcE=
Received: by 10.204.129.7 with SMTP id m7mr9242bks.17.1342138437221;
        Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:13:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.143.140 with SMTP id v12ls2386681bku.6.gmail; Thu, 12 Jul
 2012 17:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.130.7 with SMTP id q7mr31481bks.2.1342138435395;
        Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.130.7 with SMTP id q7mr31480bks.2.1342138435380;
        Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-f170.google.com (mail-lb0-f170.google.com [209.85.217.170])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j4si1546458bkj.3.2012.07.12.17.13.55
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.170;
Received: by lbgc1 with SMTP id c1so3493212lbg.15
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:13:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.111.71 with SMTP id ig7mr251451lab.28.1342138434719; Thu,
 12 Jul 2012 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.63.48 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 17:13:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDVBmt4=Ga_ah=0vBCRh=q-za-=iXiUyxctF=PNwTq7aSw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOQ8VDVBmt4=Ga_ah=0vBCRh=q-za-=iXiUyxctF=PNwTq7aSw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:13:54 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cvggJmBbOzFOCmrUyCWEBa4afFq-zdUWSkGP6_OAuPQw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] {da} and abstractions
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
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:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
> coi ro do
>
> I'm not sure if the CLL ever mentions it, or if there's some general
> consensus or convention governing this, but to the prenex of which
> bridi do logically quantified variables that have not been declared in
> any prenex belong? (I feel like that "belong" elides a lot of
> non-existent terminators.)

I take it they are bound in the prenex of the most immediate bridi,
but preferrably I just try to avoid implicit binding.

> #2 {mi prami roda gi'e se xebni noda}
> (I think #2 is a longstanding issue with regards to logical
> connectives and logically quantified variables.)

I see no other option than for it to be:
"ge ro da zo'u mi prami da gi no da zo'u mi se xebni da"

> Additionally, logically quantified variables have a similar issue with tu'a.
> Consider the formal definition of tu'a:
> {tu'a ko'a} == {lo su'u ko'a co'e}.
> Is it the case that this formal definition no longer applies when
> using a logically quantified variable in the raised sumti slot?
> {tu'a da} =? {lo su'u da co'e}

I take "tu'a da" (when "da" has not been explicitly bound) to be
equivalent to "tu'a su'o da", which in turn is equivalent to "lo su'u
su'o da zo'u da co'e".

> I get the impression that sumti inside LAhE don't follow the usual
> rules, otherwise lu'i (and possibly some other LAhE) would be
> completely pointless.

"lu'i" is not very well defined anyway, especially when applied to
quantified of logically connected terms.

> The useful interpretation of {lu'i ci lo mu nanmu} is "the set
> composed of three of the five men"

But there isn't one such set, there are 10 of them. Is it any one of
them, all of them?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.