From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Apr 06 17:20:35 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:20:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DJKl2-00085n-0D
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:20:28 -0700
Received: from web81310.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.85])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DJKkz-000852-6y
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:20:27 -0700
Message-ID: <20050407001954.80327.qmail@web81310.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81310.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 06 Apr 2005 17:19:54 PDT
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 17:19:54 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Hintikka on Quantifier Scope
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: 6667
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 9776
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--- 2 = 3 <xod@thestonecutters.net> wrote:
> "Here we are beginning to see the whole horror
> of Frege's mistake.
> The notation he introduced (like the later
> notation of Russell and
> Whitehead) arbitrarily rules out certain
> perfectly possible patterns of
> dependence and independence between quantifiers
> or between connectives
> and quantifiers."
> 
>
http://www.hf.uio.no/filosofi/njpl/vol1no2/revolution/revolution.pdf

Oh, that Jaako!  What a card!  He is technically
right, of course, but he also points out most of
the reasons why little will come of it -- for a
while at least.
As for its role in Lojbanery, his notation does
suggest a partial solution for the problem of
quantifiers not getting comfortably where they
are needed (sentences about dogs biting men seem
to play quite arole here).  I suppose the
relaization here would be something like {pe}
attaching a list of binding (or of nonbinding)
variables to a variable that was out of place
linearly.  I seem to recall something like this
was proposed once a long while ago using modified
Skolem functions in place of particular
quantifiers (and eventually groups -- bunches --
for value to make the numeric cases work).  It
died for now forgotten reasons, but the {pe}-like
critter might survive.  There has been less
discussion of problems with connectives and
quantifiers, though it should be easy to get up a
few specimens.  Alas, it is less easy to see how
to apply Hintikka's notation to the connective
cases (and especially how to get workarounds for
connectives other than OR -- we can't expect
everything to be in normal form). This probably
deserves another look-at sometime along the line.
 

 
> If it rained, it did not rain hard.
> It did rain hard.
> Therefore it did not rain.

So the first premise if false, it rained and
rained hard. (strictly requires that raining hard
entails raining -- not a problematic addition,
but it reduces then to a contradiction.)