Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22c;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3cb1fc04-c3d0-3535-099e-30b8b120f219@gmx.de>
References: <3cb1fc04-c3d0-3535-099e-30b8b120f219@gmx.de>
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2016 01:23:09 +0100
Message-ID: <CACf3dPm1Q82=q34=_HeWSy1oxZY3E2mT-SAoxa4imVp_xBXmGg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Quantifier Logic (blog article)
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114d7170171481053e4f8805
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.8
X-Spam_score_int: -17
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a114d7170171481053e4f8805
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 7 Oct 2016 13:09, "selpahi" <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

> https://solpahi.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/a-simpler-quantifier-logic/

For me, this is Lojban's most valuable contribution to the world: the
discovery of the practical necessity of plural logic. (It was xorxes's
discovery, but wouldn't have happened without Lojban.)

I think a clearer example of the need for ru'o is "weighs 20 kg" -- ro'oi
rock weighs 20kg must be false if there's more than one rock; ro'oi pa rock
weighs 20kg gets the distrib reading; so ru'o rock weigh 20kg is needed for
the collective or not-necessarily-distributive.

I do have one question, regarding the following:
"One last note about predicates not being defined clearly as
distributive/non-distributive in xorlo; xorxes wanted lo to be absolutely
non-committal with regards to distributivity, therefore, in his model, all
predicates are left vague with regards to distributivity. In my proposed
full plural logic, predicates are defined as distributive or
non-distributive, so it is usually unnecessary to force distributivity via
explicit universal quantification."
I take it that this is not held to be a necessary feature of full plural
logic, but rather is held to be desirable so as to not have to force
distributivity via quantification. And I take it also that by "predicates"
you mean "argument places"? Each argument place is either distributive or
collective? Would you not also want an "unspecified as regards
distributivity"? And wouldn't this mean that where the xorxesian
underspecification of distributivity would have one predicate with, say,
three argument places, yours would have 2^3 or 3^3 predicates? This looks
so untenable that I conclude I must be misunderstanding you.

--And.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--001a114d7170171481053e4f8805
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr">On 7 Oct 2016 13:09, &quot;selpahi&quot; &lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:seladwa@gmx.de">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt; wrote:</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt;<a href=3D"https://solpahi.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/a-si=
mpler-quantifier-logic/"> https://solpahi.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/a-simple=
r-quantifier-logic/</a></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">For me, this is Lojban&#39;s most valuable contribution to t=
he world: the discovery of the practical necessity of plural logic. (It was=
 xorxes&#39;s discovery, but wouldn&#39;t have happened without Lojban.)</p=
>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I think a clearer example of the need for ru&#39;o is &quot;=
weighs 20 kg&quot; -- ro&#39;oi rock weighs 20kg must be false if there&#39=
;s more than one rock; ro&#39;oi pa rock weighs 20kg gets the distrib readi=
ng; so ru&#39;o rock weigh 20kg is needed for the collective or not-necessa=
rily-distributive.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I do have one question, regarding the following:<br>
&quot;One last note about predicates not being defined clearly as distribut=
ive/non-distributive in xorlo; xorxes wanted lo to be absolutely non-commit=
tal with regards to distributivity, therefore, in his model, all predicates=
 are left vague with regards to distributivity. In my proposed full plural =
logic, predicates are defined as distributive or non-distributive, so it is=
 usually unnecessary to force distributivity via explicit universal quantif=
ication.&quot;<br>
I take it that this is not held to be a necessary feature of full plural lo=
gic, but rather is held to be desirable so as to not have to force distribu=
tivity via quantification. And I take it also that by &quot;predicates&quot=
; you mean &quot;argument places&quot;? Each argument place is either distr=
ibutive or collective? Would you not also want an &quot;unspecified as rega=
rds distributivity&quot;? And wouldn&#39;t this mean that where the xorxesi=
an underspecification of distributivity would have one predicate with, say,=
 three argument places, yours would have 2^3 or 3^3 predicates? This looks =
so untenable that I conclude I must be misunderstanding you.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">--And.</p>

<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"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http=
s://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 />

--001a114d7170171481053e4f8805--