Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400c:c01::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400c:c01::234;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2f4f0766-1f52-46f0-80af-b4de86d9b5bd@googlegroups.com>
References: <CAN2DD_E0QBcidfV+rp=N+rW1YeYtOanugo172BbgwFmswA2-SA@mail.gmail.com>
	<52F26B9E.2090001@gmx.de>
	<5e023b9a-515c-432b-a389-8f9af4766b51@googlegroups.com>
	<52F29ED8.1050607@gmx.de>
	<a337096c-d88e-4387-a3d7-9642195e72af@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2fqC3RQkHDE5unLx-z+5U4VU2nWempwEnzDAcpyB810pw@mail.gmail.com>
	<372dd8f1-1920-4afa-8d11-aa55696982a0@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2f+f5tebxR-eH5UAx8mkOJAaZnM3Es2syyOdcMHZpn0qw@mail.gmail.com>
	<03555bbd-cc44-426f-94ee-65d557f2d301@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2d1U9Z=ZJ6sPaP++huPE+zE_dCGqXsrJ80jk4c5M+Y_GQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<592497c0-5db5-420e-867f-8df1663eca27@googlegroups.com>
	<52F65A5C.90605@gmx.de>
	<348c23bf-6d9f-4a05-bfe7-69b141c03cb7@googlegroups.com>
	<52F776EE.6070406@gmx.de>
	<6ffd64d2-2e2c-4b83-8722-b7f262f5837a@googlegroups.com>
	<52F7A4D5.5070106@gmx.de>
	<56096dec-1969-420d-b4e5-b8539cbe0cc0@googlegroups.com>
	<52F8FAA2.9030009@gmx.de>
	<d6efd1cb-67df-4eac-bbfa-594e398d752e@googlegroups.com>
	<52FE053C.3000604@gmx.de>
	<c4ed7ea2-88cb-42e9-85ab-2333b72628ac@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2eR7Y+tzvQKa2VOV8uyLH3yCOgsUpGqKPzU3a1iDWvhLg@mail.gmail.com>
	<1e6d5917-ad1e-4c5b-abb7-5deb92110b83@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2fPBHb-akuCkn7uZMeu8uK-LJdWs6cZHaUv+dSVrv4PQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<f3068c3d-41d9-4bdb-801a-0160422973d9@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2cgRXCKPfoT6g4SegcmVSBAgkRpEN8fY59zJdmnC7dbag@mail.gmail.com>
	<68bacba4-a957-481c-ba00-211db2de8dc3@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2eDDeZcqfXAv+0HQGG5TdH2pVHEan8CmMqrRg2L931-4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<2f4f0766-1f52-46f0-80af-b4de86d9b5bd@googlegroups.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:38:50 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cVFfXgK6sSeBe2PGiQ7PtkpAvHXi=F2G1ncWUwdvuO5g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307abdab88cb0d04f2b442bd
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--20cf307abdab88cb0d04f2b442bd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Le mardi 18 f=E9vrier 2014 07:41:04 UTC+9, xorxes a =E9crit :
>
>>
>> lo PA broda :=3D zo'e noi ke'a PA mei gi'e broda
>>
>
>
> I prefer that definition to the current one because the system of countin=
g
> is clearer than {zilkancu}, though atomicity is still not required for {P=
A
> mei}.
>

Atomicity is not strictly required for the definition, but it's kind of
implicit. If atomicity is false, then "su'o N mei" is always true. They are
just a series of tautological predicates. And "N mei" is always false for
any finite N, a series of contradictory predicates. So we _can_ define "PA
mei" in the absence of atomicity, but actually using those predicates for
anything meaningful requires atomicity. In the absence of atoms, anything
at all satisfies su'o N mei and consequently nothing at all satisfies N mei=
.

If we really need atomicity for {lo PA broda}, we could add a condition of
> individual for {lo pa broda}:
> {lo pa broda} =3Dca'e {zo'e noi ro'oi da poi ke'a xi pa me ke'a xi re zo'=
u
> ke'a xi re me da gi'e broda}
>
> However, I think atomicity is not necessary for a definition of inner
> quantifier.
>

I agree it's not necessary for the definition, but the use of a finite
inner quantifier presupposes individuals.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--20cf307abdab88cb0d04f2b442bd
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote">On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 10:13 AM, guskant <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:gusni.kantu@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">gusni.kantu@gmail.c=
om</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br>Le mardi 18 f=E9vrier 2=
014 07:41:04 UTC+9, xorxes a =E9crit=A0:<div><div class=3D"h5"><blockquote =
class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #=
ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>lo PA =
broda :=3D zo&#39;e noi ke&#39;a PA mei gi&#39;e broda</div></div></div></d=
iv></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div>I prefer tha=
t definition to the current one because the system of counting is clearer t=
han {zilkancu}, though atomicity is still not required for {PA mei}.</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Atomicity is not strictly required f=
or the definition, but it&#39;s kind of implicit. If atomicity is false, th=
en &quot;su&#39;o N mei&quot; is always true. They are just a series of tau=
tological predicates. And &quot;N mei&quot; is always false for any finite =
N, a series of contradictory predicates. So we _can_ define &quot;PA mei&qu=
ot; in the absence of atomicity, but actually using those predicates for an=
ything meaningful requires atomicity. In the absence of atoms, anything at =
all satisfies su&#39;o N mei and consequently nothing at all satisfies N me=
i.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex=
;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div>If we r=
eally need atomicity for {lo PA broda}, we could add a condition of individ=
ual for {lo pa broda}:</div>
<div>{lo pa broda} =3Dca&#39;e {zo&#39;e noi ro&#39;oi da poi ke&#39;a xi p=
a me ke&#39;a xi re zo&#39;u ke&#39;a xi re me da gi&#39;e broda}</div><div=
><br></div><div>However, I think atomicity is not necessary for a definitio=
n of inner quantifier.=A0</div>
</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I agree it&#39;s not necessary for t=
he definition, but the use of a finite inner quantifier presupposes individ=
uals.</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div><br></div=
>
</div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />

--20cf307abdab88cb0d04f2b442bd--