From fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com Fri Nov 08 09:01:18 2002 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:01:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18ACVN-00052z-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Nov 2002 09:01:13 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gA8H7BiR085749; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:07:11 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gA8H7A4H085746; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:07:10 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:07:10 -0600 From: Jordan DeLong To: lojban-list@lojban.org Cc: And Rosta Subject: [lojban] Re: Attempting to bring the ro debate to a resolution Message-ID: <20021108170710.GB85425@allusion.net> References: <200211081222.HAA29371@mail2.reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200211081222.HAA29371@mail2.reutershealth.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 2539 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 07:08:52AM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > And Rosta scripsit: > > The position supported by everybody except pc (=3D me, xorxes, Jordan, > > Adam, Nick + probably xod & Robin -- everybody who's participated, > > & probably the remainder of Lojbanists too) is this: > >=20 > > A. ro broda cu brode =3D ro da poi broda cu brode > > B. ro da poi broda cu broda =3D ro da ga na broda gi brode > > C. ro broda cu brode =3D ro da ga na broda gi brode > >=20 > > The position supported by pc is that C is definitely invalid, while > > either one of A and B may be declared valid, with the other one > > declared invalid (though his preference is for A to be valid and > > B to be invalid). Well, let me say that I would prefer if it could just be decided that {ro} is nonimporting. Under those circumstances the logical structure of {ro broda cu brode} is still A(broda(x)) (brode(x)), which happens to have the same truth conditions as Ax(broda(x) -> brode(x)). Actually I'll go so far as to say that this method of resolving the issue isn't consistent with relatively clauses in lojban in general, so it's best to just stick with the point, which is whether {ro} imports. The consensus I'd like to see, (and it seems like it is certainly within reach) is that {ro} is noniporting, and that C is only valid in that they have the same truth conditions. > Well, I must break consensus on this. The position here labeled pc's is [...] > > Each position is partially but not fully consistent with CLL (which=20 > > itself is not internally consistent). >=20 > I still don't understand where the inconsistency is. The inconsistency, which araizen pointed out, is that the naku boundary rules don't work if you have the importing {ro}. For example, assuming an importing ro, as the book says. ro pavyseljirna cu blabi is false, there's no pavyseljirna, so naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi should be true, but: naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi =3D=3D su'o pavyseljirna naku blabi which claims that there a pavyseljirna. Thus either "naku ro pavyseljirna cu blabi" is also false, or the naku boundary rules in the book don't work. In my view changing import of {ro} is far less disruptive than changing the naku boundary rules, and nonimporting gives us the ability to talk about lo'i pavyseljirna when there's none of them (we could get this using AndR's trick of thinking about the *da* as the thing which imports, but we'd still need to change the naku rules in that case). Furthermore, I don't think nonimporting ro is as abnormal as pc is leading us to believe. > > The debate about whether the universal quantifier and/or ro is=20 > > importing is pretty much a red-herring, because it boils down to > > a question of the effect of an empty universe on truth values. >=20 > I agree. I don't: I think import of {ro} is the real issue here. --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9y+8+DrrilS51AZ8RAuekAJ9KNiD50rocBIGBdSymoZMwRHoWtACgqRSP yTSG1Y4zRkW5Vb/o9FXcl2w= =vgEZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --GRPZ8SYKNexpdSJ7--