From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Jul 14 15:56:47 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:56:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G1WaB-0007Vv-F5 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:56:27 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.176]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G1WaA-0007Vo-K2 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:56:27 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so889585pye for ; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:56:25 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=RiJgNfVKcV9LGZls8IUoFKPGEh+ocjfJx9Mky4EejmbLCsotvZxHCKhNenmr956IdQqmTsDC3MDAvKyGT9mQdwlSaIL1wwEUkQT1ygeOWushPlcO7LzjK2OdexFBiwfG3in+Uju0Lo7blj+ePFikrkQPCTwavKkSZ9CIC2/e4VQ= Received: by 10.35.111.7 with SMTP id o7mr55860pym; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.14.17 with HTTP; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:56:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560607141556o7378040aie19867e9bc5b2a32@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 19:56:25 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} In-Reply-To: <20060714154412.80742.qmail@web81313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560607131846jb3d95d1wf9559cf162677db5@mail.gmail.com> <20060714154412.80742.qmail@web81313.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 12207 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 7/14/06, John E Clifford wrote: > (I was trying to keep this as uncomplicated as possible -- but when you > simplify one place it always makes a probelm sowhere else). If the goal of the exercise is to demonstrate the equivalence of the singularist and the pluralist models, wouldn't a simpler language, without variables, quantifiers, determiners and connectives do just as well? i.e. doesn't a language whose only terms are names already contain all the interesting ingredients for that purpose? Second question: wouldn't a model without mediating concepts (for either the singularist or the pluralist) be also equivalent to the models with concepts? i.e. a model where the interpretation is a function from terms to masses or C relates terms to masses, and predicates are interpreted as functions from terms into {0,1}? Do concepts contribute anything in this simple language? ki'e mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.