Received: from mail-oi0-f58.google.com ([209.85.218.58]:32927) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1bDtol-0006pc-Ie for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:28:19 -0700 Received: by mail-oi0-f58.google.com with SMTP id u81sf19696148oia.0 for ; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:28:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=sender:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Csubis1UnNMVnvdJJkE8GuZ67yVXaI511SySaEROlqs=; b=yl+GXeCFpSqSlHC5upRGkNVxXFwiOANY0hfftGLigiF+saXbd0Q8n+Ymp/y2ETNnqj 0VB5qI5UuXIFFKaZ7kQqmYzmD+zPFQomRPvWDLQzdVhvua5UgPDqyJ0BA21xNgYAixsn inIVceExHVmsCWCFsAur3yxCGzbmLu3NTSygRqsxAXvBKVhwD7yvJk2xxt7wSsaOvxpp E51JchlVaKtWgRCfKvQiG+PtkUrGfSSOx+baRkHOOhwVJmWBkQhdW6GzoRqdrR1+IxbH ZPYk+sX7oYp20xTyA7fVc47/3/pj7f3ONdx0Nr5584Djdiv5N7kq1RuKeIYnfGz/2AY+ QeNA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Csubis1UnNMVnvdJJkE8GuZ67yVXaI511SySaEROlqs=; b=p5Z4z7ZG/UXp0xXdiJzn/hjQiJxMfRP3p/N4BYbacDQqoxzTA4XnBoo5L8CNDbnhn4 ZTUSf4qX/XW/SCZb/5BV48PVcT614s85LWeKjWFolm60Q1wSsKGfSpoi1JDxs2NrRClF alwjifXgfu14d0ol1XiBKq+jDmut/vxeBEtwjhrjveA+OdBfsL4QmMZNh8GhVyCOQqxg WQn95lVOE59tgC9kMV5qZzWO5Y3ssiMs7Aa6B4uG24AQJL2MlKkcj8kcKCo2o0ZecJD5 2y6S7cfYmhAQsa+EJxVTEiP0okD4HAfPnrEHJ8C3h38rkB9ptgivuPJPDfbjlfARY3Kt 8gZg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=sender:x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to :references:subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Csubis1UnNMVnvdJJkE8GuZ67yVXaI511SySaEROlqs=; b=PvdK3lhGTaAb9YeVS/9FViiyDp8nB8LrmRGXBnke1ToT9LL9LwT5rA7RnYahnPzgkc 3ruLelslUUAIT2qVJCgcd4U7kPkmUGiXmtLBkZfYsqo4TY29WmKK8R1ZeSzV9A3CMkO8 6XLLs7Xwuo24NgM+W9Tl4a65RH+ATjE/uS5vz+L6ascSK6QZ+yac1P5UGxrTgel9RAsX yU6K33HkZqgO/TYV+Yea2/UuNRVmtKcIUFtsfy58CjWbhIxw1//j4ebSlO9fXCqiW/YD ecPB+W56W2RtoCQoBVybabSHdwPcsBRoP0O4FpPDvahTqji2YaUlBqhxEBZjPz82qhVf aTOA== Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tIVqI1NJk60ER035GDcVcAOdm6+tqBICGHKtEfg/LZHgAdJrFljm2WANTfaF/kEaQ== X-Received: by 10.157.48.52 with SMTP id d49mr87967otc.20.1466170089316; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:28:09 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.157.31.41 with SMTP id x38ls739162otd.89.gmail; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:28:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.157.32.6 with SMTP id n6mr88412ota.10.1466170089002; Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:28:09 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 06:28:08 -0700 (PDT) From: guskant To: lojban Message-Id: <85972cde-32fc-4484-83a6-0cb3080d48fa@googlegroups.com> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: {tu'e...tu'u} in NU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_2411_529489139.1466170088217" X-Original-Sender: gusni.kantu@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_bar: - ------=_Part_2411_529489139.1466170088217 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2412_2146681675.1466170088217" ------=_Part_2412_2146681675.1466170088217 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le vendredi 17 juillet 2015 00:45:03 UTC, guskant a =C3=A9crit : > > > > Le jeudi 16 juillet 2015 21:35:46 UTC, xorxes a =C3=A9crit : >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 1:23 AM, guskant wrote: >> >>> >>> For the same reason, I prefer the interpretation of "all true or all=20 >>> false" for {go} and "one and only one of them is true" for {gonai} to t= he=20 >>> interpretation of grouping of binary connectives. >>> >> >> One problem with that interpretation for "gonai" is that it doesn't go= =20 >> well with "go ... ginai ... gi ..." and such. The natural Lojbanic=20 >> interpretation is for "nai" to negate the following connectand. So "gona= i A=20 >> gi B gi C" would be true when A differs in truth value from B and from C= . >> >> "One and only one of them" is more useful, but hard to reconcile with th= e=20 >> general pattern. >> >> mu'o mi'e xorxes >> > > =20 > > In the case that we give those special meaning to n-ary forethought=20 > connectives, {go} and {gonai} should be defined as broader meaning than= =20 > XNOR or XOR, so that they become XNOR and XOR respectively in the case of= =20 > n=3D2. > > If {go} and {gonai} are defined as "all true or all false" and "one and= =20 > only one of them is true", there must be {gocu'i} for the other cases:=20 > {gonai ... gi ... gi ...} is not equal to {nago ... gi ... gi ...} in the= =20 > case of n>2. > > > Le jeudi 16 juillet 2015 21:58:31 UTC, xorxes a =C3=A9crit : >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Alex Burka wrote: >> >>> So, to the question of that {gu} and {go} mean with more than 2=20 >>> arguments, we kind of find ourselves with tradeoff between logic and ea= se=20 >>> of use. >>> >>> First I get nervous extending them to >2-ary at all, since it becomes= =20 >>> harder to reason about the negations ({gonai X gi Y} is XOR, but {gonai= X=20 >>> gi Y gi Z} is not, it's something strange instead -- and nobody can do= =20 >>> truth tables in their head, even fluent speakers). >>> >>> The interpretations you list are undoubtedly useful (particularly the= =20 >>> "which one out of these X alternatives"-connective is often asked for,= =20 >>> >> >> "Which one(s) of the following" would be "ge'i ... gi ... gi ... gi ...= =20 >> ", right? >> =20 >> >>> though there is a workable solution using {moi}). But they do not=20 >>> correspond to the mathematical interpretation. For example, n-ary XOR i= s=20 >>> supposed to be true when an odd number of the arguments are true, which= is=20 >>> not obvious (or often useful in speech). Changing this can cause=20 >>> difficulties with composition, for example logical transformations like= De=20 >>> Morgans' laws will not work.=20 >>> >> >> The negation of "ga ... gi ... gi ..." is still "ge nai ... gi nai ... g= i=20 >> nai ..." and viceversa. And "go ... gi ... gi ..." should be equivalent = to=20 >> "go nai ... gi nai ... gi nai ... ", but that means "go nai" can't mean= =20 >> "one and only one of the following".=20 >> > > =20 > > Yes, if {gonai} is defined as above, equivalence between {go ... gi ... g= i=20 > ...} and {go nai ... gi nai ... gi nai ...} will be broken. We need to ke= ep=20 > {go ... gi ...} and {go nai ... gi nai ...} be equivalent in the case of= =20 > n=3D2. Would this change of meaning of {GA nai} hurt usefulness of binary= =20 > connective system? If we carefully define {GA (nai)} of n-ary connective= =20 > system, it might be possible to keep the binary connective system safe. > > I am examining more reasonable semantics by adding a new syntactic feature= =20 "GA BO" to the recent unstable version of zantufa: http://guskant.github.io/gerna_cipra/zantufa-1.9999.html {go broda gi brode gi brodi}: all true or all false of {broda}, {brode} and= =20 {brodi}. {gonai broda gi brode gi brodi}: all true or all false of {na broda},=20 {brode} and {brodi}. {gonaibo broda gi brode gi brodi}: only one of {broda}, {brode} and {brodi}= =20 is true; the others are false. Then in the case of binary, both {gonai} and {gonaibo} have usual XOR=20 meaning: {gonai broda gi brode}=3D{gonaibo broda gi brode}: only one of {broda} and= =20 {brode} is true, the other is false. Do you find any problem? If not, the feature will be added to the next=20 stable release of zantufa. mi'e la guskant =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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ------=_Part_2412_2146681675.1466170088217 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le vendredi 17 juillet 2015 00:45:03 UTC, guskant = a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:


Le = jeudi 16 juillet 2015 21:35:46 UTC, xorxes a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:


On Thu, Jul 16= , 2015 at 1:23 AM, guskant=C2=A0<gusni...@gmail.com>=C2=A0= wrote:

For the same reason, I prefe= r the interpretation of "all true or all false" for {go} and &quo= t;one and only one of them is true" for {gonai} to the interpretation = of grouping of binary connectives.

On= e problem with that interpretation for "gonai" is that it doesn&#= 39;t go well with "go ... ginai ... gi ..." and such. The natural= Lojbanic interpretation is for "nai" to negate the following con= nectand. So "gonai A gi B gi C" would be true when A differs in t= ruth value from B and from C.

"One and only o= ne of them" is more useful, but hard to reconcile with the general pat= tern.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

=C2=A0

I= n the case that we give those special meaning to n-ary forethought connecti= ves, {go} and {gonai} should be defined as broader meaning than XNOR or XOR= , so that they become XNOR and XOR respectively in the case of n=3D2.
=

If {go} and {gonai} are defined as "all true or al= l false" and "one and only one of them is true", there must = be {gocu'i} for the other cases: {gonai ... gi ... gi ...} is not equal= to {nago ... gi ... gi ...} in the case of n>2.


Le jeudi 16 juillet 2015 21:58:31 UTC, xorxes a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:


On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 7:30 AM, Alex Burka <dur...@gmail.com> wrote:
So, to the question of that {gu} and {go} mean with = more than 2 arguments, we kind of find ourselves with tradeoff between logi= c and ease of use.

First I get nervous extending them to >2-ary at= all, since it becomes harder to reason about the negations ({gonai X gi Y}= is XOR, but {gonai X gi Y gi Z} is not, it's something strange instead= -- and nobody can do truth tables in their head, even fluent speakers).

The interpretations you list are undoubtedly useful (particularly the &= quot;which one out of these X alternatives"-connective is often asked = for,

"Which one(s) of the= following" would be "ge'i ... gi ... gi ... gi ... ", r= ight?
=C2=A0
though there is a work= able solution using {moi}). But they do not correspond to the mathematical = interpretation. For example, n-ary XOR is supposed to be true when an odd n= umber of the arguments are true, which is not obvious (or often useful in s= peech). Changing this can cause difficulties with composition, for example = logical transformations like De Morgans' laws will not work.

The negation of "ga ... gi ... gi .= .." is still "ge nai ... gi nai ... gi nai ..." and vicevers= a. And "go ... gi ... gi ..." should be equivalent to "go na= i ... gi nai ... gi nai ... ", but that means "go nai" can&#= 39;t mean "one and only one of the following".=C2=A0
<= /div>

=C2=A0

Yes, if {gonai} is defined as above, equivalence between {go ... gi .= .. gi ...} and {go nai ... gi nai ... gi nai ...} will be broken. We need t= o keep {go ... gi ...} and {go nai ... gi nai ...} be equivalent in the cas= e of n=3D2. Would this change of meaning of {GA nai} hurt usefulness of bin= ary connective system? If we carefully define {GA (nai)} of n-ary connectiv= e system, it might be possible to keep the binary connective system safe.



I am examining more reasonable semantics by adding a new synta= ctic feature "GA BO" to the recent unstable version of zantufa:
http://guskant.github.io/gerna_cipra/zantufa-1.9999.html

{go broda gi brode gi brodi}: all true or all false of {bro= da}, {brode} and {brodi}.
{gonai broda gi brode gi brodi}: all tr= ue or all false of {na broda}, {brode} and {brodi}.
{gonaibo brod= a gi brode gi brodi}: only one of {broda}, {brode} and {brodi} is true; the= others are false.

Then in the case of binary, bot= h {gonai} and {gonaibo} have usual XOR meaning:

{g= onai broda gi brode}=3D{gonaibo broda gi brode}: only one of {broda} and {b= rode} is true, the other is false.

Do you find any= problem? If not, the feature will be added to the next stable release of z= antufa.

mi'e la guskant
=C2=A0
=

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http= s://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_2412_2146681675.1466170088217-- ------=_Part_2411_529489139.1466170088217--