Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.15.15 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.15.15;
Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Quantifier Logic (blog article)
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <3cb1fc04-c3d0-3535-099e-30b8b120f219@gmx.de>
 <CACf3dPm1Q82=q34=_HeWSy1oxZY3E2mT-SAoxa4imVp_xBXmGg@mail.gmail.com>
From: selpahi <seladwa@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <99931644-56cd-b50f-401d-af57df7e64b0@gmx.de>
Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2016 17:49:43 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CACf3dPm1Q82=q34=_HeWSy1oxZY3E2mT-SAoxa4imVp_xBXmGg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.7
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_bar: -

On 08.10.2016 02:23, And Rosta wrote:
> 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"?

Yes. "Predicate" is a sloppy abbreviation, but it works as long as you=20
assume that the predicates under discussion are unary.

I don't think it's a *necessary* feature of all possible plural logics.=20
It is merely one that I currently favor.

> 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.

This would indeed be untenable, but I do not believe that you need every=20
version of every predicate. For example, I believe that a distributive=20
{citka} is enough. Very often, a non-distributive version is either not=20
distinct from the distributive version, or includes some added meaning=20
of "doing it together while possibly some of them only watch" (things=20
like {kansi'u lo ka citka}). There is a lot more to be said here, but=20
I'd rather first hear any additional points from you.

Unspecified distributivity in an argument place is a form of ambiguity=20
at the definitional level of a predicate. It makes it very difficult to=20
ever answer "what does it mean to {broda}", because there are by=20
definition multiple potentially non-overlapping answers. (I cannot=20
possibly count the hours that went into discussing {bevri lo pipno} over=20
the years without ever getting to a conclusion. This sort of stuff is=20
hard to sort out!)

There are other ways (for example, in the realm of pragmatics) to deal=20
with vague distributivity, outside of the definition of argument places,=20
and I prefer those ways.

~~~mi'e la solpa'i


---
Diese E-Mail wurde von Avast Antivirus-Software auf Viren gepr=C3=BCft.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

--=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.