Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::22a;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1411574508.45917.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <5f6a7dec-3c5d-477d-bd73-5bd69726b713@googlegroups.com>
	<1411515475.42591.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<1465cea2-41be-48ac-8f02-934d4a4b904b@googlegroups.com>
	<88e103a9-04e1-4739-97c2-f37fa457e4a8@googlegroups.com>
	<90cb23e1-0ed7-4b3c-9626-c31c4c8a8076@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7bV+ivxnfLe8WfvKnhKXS5NPgu5Eex=HdrD=X=6n9MTtFobQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANbwn5AeGqz+x0os-=21CFxVv8b=dRSL85ff0ddvHx9-nf8SsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1411567412.85594.YahooMailNeo@web181102.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CAO7tK2dnODduDUJ9HpiUbomobj80-xMggQ72kjwpYOSNwhQ3Mw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1411570426.39518.YahooMailNeo@web181106.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<CAO7tK2dYH5RMOrhwdn1_gaefsT1U6FLkypwVNhgb5-TyU-Wemw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1411574508.45917.YahooMailNeo@web181103.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 13:46:57 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cMv8A74cb5YcSXte1UCBADWE_MJoRZAzvWRhq_AVhOLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Mathy person interested in concept, unsure where to begin.
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <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=001a1132efa0a60b460503d26e23
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a1132efa0a60b460503d26e23
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <
lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Both attitudinals and vocatives (and Gricean operators and evidentials and
> just about anything else I can think of) have places in the extended logics
> that comprise appropriate bases, so those are not problems.
>

If those extended logics use the same formalism of FOPL, then their
formulas can be directly and automatically translated into Lojban (but
without using Lojban's "shortcuts", of course). If they each use a
different particular syntax, then they may not have an automatic
translation into Lojban, or at least each case would have to be analysed
separately to see how it can be accommodated. I don't think it's reasonable
to expect Lojban to automatically translate every formalism ever used
though.


> It is pretty easy -- in theory.  Working out the practical details is the
> bitch.  But I suspect the real reason it has not been done is that no one
> has until recently been very explicit about what needs to be done, the
> whole having been expressed in vague generalities rather than (slightly)
> more specific programs.  Score a point or two for the radical revisionists.
>

A lot of work needs to be done to explain how Lojban's "shortcuts", and its
"bells and whistles", translate into something that can be called
"logical". If that's what you're saying, I agree. What I thought you were
saying, but perhaps you were not, is that you had doubts that Lojban would
have any trouble expressing FOPL. That part is trivial.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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 email 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.

--001a1132efa0a60b460503d26e23
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 1:01 PM, &#39;John E Clifford&#39; via lojban <=
span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_=
blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=
=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-fami=
ly:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;fo=
nt-size:12pt"><div><span>Both attitudinals and vocatives (and Gricean opera=
tors and evidentials and just about anything else I can think of) have plac=
es in the extended logics that comprise appropriate bases, so those are not=
 problems.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If thos=
e extended logics use the same formalism of FOPL, then their formulas can b=
e directly and automatically translated into Lojban (but without using Lojb=
an&#39;s &quot;shortcuts&quot;, of course). If they each use a different pa=
rticular syntax, then they may not have an automatic translation into Lojba=
n, or at least each case would have to be analysed separately to see how it=
 can be accommodated. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s reasonable to expect Lojba=
n to automatically translate every formalism ever used though.=C2=A0</div><=
div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8e=
x;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"color:#00=
0;background-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,=
Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div style=3D"color:rgb(0,0,=
0);font-size:16px;font-family:HelveticaNeue,&#39;Helvetica Neue&#39;,Helvet=
ica,Arial,&#39;Lucida Grande&#39;,sans-serif;font-style:normal;background-c=
olor:transparent"><span>It is pretty easy -- in theory.=C2=A0 Working out t=
he practical details is the bitch.=C2=A0 But I suspect the real reason it h=
as not been done is that no one has until recently been very explicit about=
 what needs to be done, the whole having been expressed in vague generaliti=
es rather than (slightly) more specific programs.=C2=A0 Score a point or tw=
o for the radical
 revisionists.</span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>A l=
ot of work needs to be done to explain how Lojban&#39;s &quot;shortcuts&quo=
t;, and its &quot;bells and whistles&quot;, translate into something that c=
an be called &quot;logical&quot;. If that&#39;s what you&#39;re saying, I a=
gree. What I thought you were saying, but perhaps you were not, is that you=
 had doubts that Lojban would have any trouble expressing FOPL. That part i=
s trivial.</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes=C2=A0</div></d=
iv></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 />

--001a1132efa0a60b460503d26e23--