From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jul 19 09:12:11 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:12:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G3EeN-0007sn-PV for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:11:51 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.177]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G3EeL-0007sf-TE for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:11:51 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id m51so360815pye for ; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:11:48 -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=p9Li07HdmC1qytHOtNBHXreWN8HBw/sr6FTL8BI8JGMspAG/aqxetN/6Z+ZFVYMjNYcscaqj1pY6ZvDcP+3Hv2qPrF3DSPqVU8OGvMDu0OHNadhomh6axN4K1kuSyiXDRwSNxc4B+qmihrgAiC0AoBc3Op0jwmEqkk2+lHkjJ6w= Received: by 10.35.107.20 with SMTP id j20mr1329667pym; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.14.17 with HTTP; Wed, 19 Jul 2006 09:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560607190911r82c3ba7kd9b8b86f6f7bbcc9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2006 13:11:48 -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: <20060719153934.37233.qmail@web81304.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: <925d17560607190825t35c8d3c8yc165f9e6a5027c12@mail.gmail.com> <20060719153934.37233.qmail@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-archive-position: 12248 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 7/19/06, John E Clifford wrote: > I guess I don't see why d-truth implies c-truth; that was certainly > not the intentio. Where did I slip up? I'm not saying it does. I can't really tell from the definitions whether it does or it doesn't, it would depend on what the n-place functions I(P) are. What I'm saying is this: If d-true implies c-true, then there is no point in defining "true" as "d-true or c-true". If d-true does not imply c-true, then there are cases that I would want to be true, but which are neither d-true, nor c-true, so defining true as d-true or c-true is not enough. An example: The boys, who were wearing hats and carrying chairs, formed a line. Each of the boys wears a hat, so "the boys wear hats" is d-true, and threfore it is true. All the boys form a line together, so "the boys form a line" is c-true and therefore it is true. The boys carry chairs in pairs, therefore "the boys carry chairs" is neither d-true nor c-true, but I still want it to be plain true. If the boys carrying chairs in pairs makes "the boys carry chairs" c-true, then surely the boys carrying chairs individually must make it c-true as well. If not, then the definition of c-true would seem to be just true but not d-true, and the introduction of the I(P) functions doesn't add anything that I can see. mu'o 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.