Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 03:19:31 -0700 (PDT)
From: guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Cc: gusni.kantu@gmail.com, mbays@sdf.org
Message-Id: <e4712b77-4de0-455a-9124-37edea5a599a@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140530032434.GA20211@gonzales>
References: <750f9b01-a747-4b12-80ba-e31b7e7bd20e@googlegroups.com>
 <570dae9f-cda3-42c4-a861-1c7974fe5bfd@googlegroups.com>
 <20140525194906.GA885@gonzales>
 <f397dab1-5b57-4798-9caa-f40e5f91d6f9@googlegroups.com>
 <20140527025346.GJ885@gonzales>
 <cfe0fb91-19c6-4af4-8f76-53c033003331@googlegroups.com>
 <20140527204250.GL885@gonzales>
 <462524b8-28de-49f3-a938-4cc42543c28f@googlegroups.com>
 <20140528171446.GN885@gonzales>
 <e1915312-81d3-46dc-9f4c-cbdf00f3b5d9@googlegroups.com>
 <20140530032434.GA20211@gonzales>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Individuals and xorlo
MIME-Version: 1.0
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="----=_Part_1580_6326610.1401531571498"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_1580_6326610.1401531571498
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le vendredi 30 mai 2014 12:24:38 UTC+9, Martin Bays a =C3=A9crit :
>
>
> As for ways to specify that a {zo'e} is constant: an alternative to your=
=20
> suggestion of introducing new rules for prenexes would be to pull tricks=
=20
> like:=20
>     su'oi da zo'u ro de broda lo du be da=20
> (which may or may not be equivalent to=20
>     lo du be su'oi da se broda ro da=20
> ).=20
>
> A bit long-winded for something so important, though.=20
>
>

Although the truth value is the same as Ax B(x,f), {su'oi da zo'u...} is=20
obviously not Skolemized. The idea of {zo'e} in prenex is intended to be=20
similar to Skolemized form of logic.=20


> Meanwhile, a question. Under these semantics, the second (and only the=20
> second!) {zo'e} in=20
>     ro zo'e zo'e broda=20
> depends functionally on the quantifier. But in=20
>     ro zo'e ro zo'e broda=20
> it doesn't make sense to say that each {zo'e} depends functionally on=20
> the quantifier on the other. This seems to complicate matters?=20
>
> Martin=20
>


I have no idea about that. Because the quantification is implicit in {zo'e}=
=20
without outer quantifier, I have a feeling that Lojban users would be less=
=20
attentive to the span of {zo'e} than that of {ro zo'e}. The difference of=
=20
their usage is quite distinct, and it would not be very complicated.

=20

--=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/d/optout.

------=_Part_1580_6326610.1401531571498
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>Le vendredi 30 mai 2014 12:24:38 UTC+9, Martin Bay=
s a =C3=A9crit&nbsp;:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;m=
argin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><br>As fo=
r ways to specify that a {zo'e} is constant: an alternative to your
<br>suggestion of introducing new rules for prenexes would be to pull trick=
s
<br>like:
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; su'oi da zo'u ro de broda lo du be da
<br>(which may or may not be equivalent to
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; lo du be su'oi da se broda ro da
<br>).
<br>
<br>A bit long-winded for something so important, though.
<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Although the truth valu=
e is the same as Ax B(x,f), {su'oi da zo'u...} is obviously not Skolemized.=
 The idea of {zo'e} in prenex is intended to be similar to Skolemized form =
of logic.&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gma=
il_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid=
;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>Meanwhile, a question. Under these semantics, the second (and only the
<br>second!) {zo'e} in
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; ro zo'e zo'e broda
<br>depends functionally on the quantifier. But in
<br>&nbsp; &nbsp; ro zo'e ro zo'e broda
<br>it doesn't make sense to say that each {zo'e} depends functionally on
<br>the quantifier on the other. This seems to complicate matters?
<br>
<br>Martin
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><div>I have no idea abo=
ut that. Because the quantification is implicit in {zo'e} without outer qua=
ntifier, I have a feeling that Lojban users would be less attentive to the =
span of {zo'e} than that of {ro zo'e}. The difference of their usage is qui=
te distinct, and it would not be very complicated.</div></div><div><br></di=
v><div>&nbsp;</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 <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<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/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

------=_Part_1580_6326610.1401531571498--