Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::22d;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1411584109.21511.YahooMailNeo@web181104.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>
	<CAO7tK2cMv8A74cb5YcSXte1UCBADWE_MJoRZAzvWRhq_AVhOLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<1411584109.21511.YahooMailNeo@web181104.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:04:20 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2faAMD6Yk-iqC+899MhFnBrVv7O3UP0SG=SSe=V14O2eg@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=047d7b3a83aef7187f0503d45947
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--047d7b3a83aef7187f0503d45947
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 3:41 PM, 'John E Clifford' via lojban <
lojban@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> No, the worry is the opposite: whether every sentence of Lojban has a
> unique (up to equivalence, say) representation in logic which can be
> automatically derived.
>

Right. As I said:

Logic -> Lojban    trivial
Lojban -> Logic   very much non-trivial


Your project is indeed trivial until you throw in all the qualifiers:
> colloquial, compact, ergonomic (I have no idea what that means for a
> sentence, but it seems popular these days), unambiguous, etc.
>

Except for "unambiguous", I agree. The automatic translation from FOPL to
Lojban is unambiguous, but usually not colloquial/compact/ergonomic.

 Then we clearly need a full set (whatever tat means -- enough for all the
> cases we know of or can think of, I suppose) of transformations, not just
> the "read it as written" (with a few easy additons) version that is
> trivial.
>

Right, that's very much a requisite for the Lojban -> Logic direction, and
necessary also to achieve colloquial/compact/ergonomic in the Logic ->
Lojban part.


> By way of connecting all this up, the formula derived from a sentence is
> the same (up to equivalence, of course -- but maybe not even with that
> condition) as the formula from which the sentence is derived.  That is
> the test of the logicality of the language.
>

The formula derived from the sentence derived from a formula is that same
formula. That part is trivial. The problem are the sentences not derived
from any formula (or not yet known to be derived from any formula).

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.

--047d7b3a83aef7187f0503d45947
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 3:41 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>No, the worry is the opposite: whether every sente=
nce of Lojban has a unique (up to equivalence, say) representation in logic=
 which can be automatically derived. =C2=A0</span></div></div></div></block=
quote><div><br></div><div>Right. As I said:=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>=
Logic -&gt; Lojban =C2=A0 =C2=A0trivial</div><div>Lojban -&gt; Logic =C2=A0=
 very much non-trivial</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-fa=
mily:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;=
font-size:12pt"><div><span>Your project is indeed trivial until you throw i=
n all the qualifiers: colloquial, compact, ergonomic (I have no idea what t=
hat means for a sentence, but it seems popular these days), unambiguous, et=
c. </span></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Except for &qu=
ot;unambiguous&quot;, I agree. The automatic translation from FOPL to Lojba=
n is unambiguous, but usually not colloquial/compact/ergonomic.</div><div><=
br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;borde=
r-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style=3D"color:#000;backg=
round-color:#fff;font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,L=
ucida Grande,sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div><span>=C2=A0Then we clearly ne=
ed a full set (whatever tat means -- enough for all the cases we know of or=
 can think of, I suppose) of transformations, not just the &quot;read it as=
 written&quot; (with a few easy additons) version that is trivial. </span><=
/div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Right, that&#39;s very mu=
ch a requisite for the Lojban -&gt; Logic direction, and necessary also to =
achieve colloquial/compact/ergonomic in the Logic -&gt; Lojban part.</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><span>By way of connect=
ing all this up, the formula derived from a sentence is the same (up to equ=
ivalence, of course -- but maybe not even with that condition) as the formu=
la from which the sentence
 is derived. =C2=A0</span><span style=3D"font-size:12pt">That is the test o=
f the logicality of the language. =C2=A0</span></div></div></div></blockquo=
te><div><br></div><div>The formula derived from the sentence derived from a=
 formula is that same formula. That part is trivial. The problem are the se=
ntences not derived from any formula (or not yet known to be derived from a=
ny formula).</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div><b=
r></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 <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 />

--047d7b3a83aef7187f0503d45947--