Received: from mail-vc0-f189.google.com ([209.85.220.189]:50713) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SpUND-0006Fj-Tq; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:08:59 -0700 Received: by vcbfl10 with SMTP id fl10sf1186662vcb.16 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:08:41 -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:from :date:message-id:subject: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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=3WO2aI2sOsT5DeOhHLJFjFeXjaNgdW7BouRWD06o45Y=; b=1yqVN+J+EK2wjK87/pEIx5bnMyWgrWGknZzZPw4KGQNbAFveu5RVjU/R2u63eyukFH 3YWydVxerXW+vKQN2uEA8RoXni46b3fTzDmbirzbiWJT4TrqFQyypAExa1QhLrX4jcws LNk1qFKmB/x9EyQpOjLnZCmSWz8XrYHxKK8eQ= Received: by 10.52.21.79 with SMTP id t15mr15308vde.16.1342141721341; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:08:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.52.75.106 with SMTP id b10ls1529816vdw.4.gmail; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.178.166 with SMTP id cz6mr303854vdc.1.1342141720708; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.178.166 with SMTP id cz6mr303853vdc.1.1342141720669; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f181.google.com (mail-vc0-f181.google.com [209.85.220.181]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dy2si289742vdb.1.2012.07.12.18.08.40 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.181; Received: by vcdd16 with SMTP id d16so2200482vcd.26 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:08:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.116.3 with SMTP id k3mr194815vcq.26.1342141720186; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:08:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.24.193 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Jul 2012 18:08:18 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References:

From: Jacob Errington Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2012 21:08:18 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] {da} and abstractions To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: nictytan@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=nictytan@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / On 12 July 2012 20:13, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:47 PM, Jacob Errington wro= te: >> 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. > Yes, implicit binding is something that we should try to avoid in cases like these. >> #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" > That's certainly the best interpretation (I don't really see any other way for it to work either). >> Additionally, logically quantified variables have a similar issue with t= u'a. >> Consider the formal definition of tu'a: >> {tu'a ko'a} =3D=3D {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} =3D? {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". > Yes, that's what I expected as well. It's probably the most useful interpretation. >> 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? > .a'u I'd never really considered that aspect of it. I always assumed the three men to be those that the speaker had in mind, given the nature of {zo'e} implicitly used by {lo}. Of course, that may not be the most useful interpretation. mu'o mi'e la tsani > 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@googlegr= oups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?hl=3Den. > --=20 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@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.