From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Jun 10 15:36:49 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:36:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K6CSO-0003mF-NF for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:36:49 -0700 Received: from narnia.blumen-schwarz.de ([80.190.195.21]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K6CSK-0003dx-G8 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 10 Jun 2008 15:36:48 -0700 Received: from n5837.n.pppool.de ([89.50.88.55]) by narnia.blumen-schwarz.de with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1K6CSA-00075f-38 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:36:37 +0200 From: namor To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] priority of se and na/nai in logical connectives Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:37:02 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806110037.05049.eldrikdo@gmail.com> X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: ------------- Start der SpamAssassin Auswertung --------------- Bei Fragen dazu bitte das Forum life.d.cvmx verwenden! Details der Inhaltsanalyse: (-1.8 Punkte, 5.0 benoetigt) -1.8 ALL_TRUSTED Nachricht wurde nur über vertrauenswürdige Rechner weitergeleitet 2.0 BAYES_50 BODY: Spamwahrscheinlichkeit nach Bayes-Test: 40-60% [score: 0.4989] -2.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list ---------------- Ende der SpamAssassin Auswertung ----------------- X-Spam-Score: 1.2 X-Spam-Score-Int: 12 X-Spam-Bar: + X-archive-position: 14478 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: eldrikdo@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Hi, I was told {broda .isejanai brode} wouldn't make any sense since: broda AND NOT brode == NOT brode AND broda But the line "FTFT U with sentences exchanged and then second negated" from CLL:15:2 indicates the contrary, for the order is the other way around. So it would rather be: broda AND NOT brode != brode AND NOT broda I also checked this by doing the swapping and then second-negating on a U connective myself and it made sense. If, however, I tried doing it the other way around it didn't work. Did I do a mistake or was I told wrong? mu'o mi'e nam 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.