From araizen@cs.huji.ac.il Fri Nov 08 04:22:19 2002
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Nov 2002 04:22:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mxout3.netvision.net.il ([194.90.9.24])
	by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05)
	id 18A89P-00016m-00
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 04:22:15 -0800
Received: from default ([62.0.145.174]) by mxout3.netvision.net.il
 (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 0.8 (built Jul 12 2002))
 with SMTP id <0H59009BDBO6HN@mxout3.netvision.net.il> for
 lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:21:43 +0200 (IST)
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 14:22:12 +0200
From: Adam Raizen <araizen@cs.huji.ac.il>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Is importing ro *really* "normal" in modern logic? (Re:
 importing ro)
To: "lojban-list@lojban.org" <lojban-list@lojban.org>
Message-id: <0H59009BEBO6HN@mxout3.netvision.net.il>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Foxmail 4.1 [eg]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 2536
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: araizen@cs.huji.ac.il
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

de'i li 2002-11-07 ti'u li 23:00:00 la'o zoi. Jordan DeLong .zoi cusku di'e

>On Thu, Nov 07, 2002 at 08:14:04PM -0500, pycyn@aol.com wrote:
>> In a message dated 11/7/2002 3:11:29 PM Central Standard Time, 
>> jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:
[li'o]
>In another message:
>> >You are using the set (A+E-I+O-)
>> >for the forms {Q broda cu brode}.
>> 
>>Yes, the traditional set from Logic since Aristotle (with occasional
>>aberrations).
>
>Ok, so you say importing universals is normal in logic, but google
>seems to think that, though Aristotle had importing universals,
>that changed after Boole.  All the pages I could find are interested
>in A-E-I+O+ (which is also the position that requires the least
>change to resolve the contradiction the book makes on the subject,
>btw).  There's even a name for the fallacy of assuming that universals
>import, called the Existential Fallacy.

The *best* evidence that in modern logic universal quantification does
not have existential import comes from pc's own website
(http://users.aol.com/pycyn/quantify.html):

pc> Lojban, following the modernest of logics, fell in with this
pc> scheme. Although it has several ways of saying ?All S is P,? they
pc> are all equivalent and all ultimately the first:
pc> 
pc> roda zo?u ganai da S gi da P
pc> 
pc> roda poi S cu P
pc> 
pc> ro lo S cu P
pc> 
pc> ro S cu P

I guess opinions do change, even logicians' opinions.

mu'o mi'e .adam.