From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Dec 22 07:08:53 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:08:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LEmOq-0005ne-T1 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:08:52 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.244]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LEmOk-0005mP-LM for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:08:52 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so2241075rvf.46 for ; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:08:42 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=VlG0aIcOxyEM3ltcCrDYhYN9hn8Ia/wBsfVVi+4Y44w=; b=Syiz/mSgdOlwUCs5dARe4oOIukq1qKLFNqHRzgvBaHyYceDmbQ/+cOBxT3hoIfhP78 ZhnHgCqg7UpYMJnIgOWlRI4MAkMAj8EmymWjd02rZ1lLtdU+2gArGLXR3YJZj74rkwUg qA6GAjl4ohf7BMMU+HyN/JvlAnqIGkcmqWny4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=AFxuZIjPTzRIjz69Q9pcSItPkHdWs4NT1dpP3HWZr4Tf/Mo+ijHGUHlXXz4wxV5Y0z HyXKWQ4u4azo+hSjUZgLVzcnwqs5MgF/UNQV2BoCVA+5WExa+Vq8DQQ0AFYfvfp4uhRA 8AwiidYfLW8XMC7XXIk7NLz67dEoWb5fXnZdU= Received: by 10.141.28.4 with SMTP id f4mr3222267rvj.164.1229958522925; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:08:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.194.15 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Dec 2008 07:08:42 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560812220708m69ba82bdjc8646d5c55958603@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 12:08:42 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: About the negators In-Reply-To: <200812220944.03051.phma@phma.optus.nu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <101615.13333.qm@web81304.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200812210615.23683.phma@phma.optus.nu> <925d17560812211053s706275cak4ab4020e3d7b5185@mail.gmail.com> <200812220944.03051.phma@phma.optus.nu> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15131 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 Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Sunday 21 December 2008 13:53:53 Jorge Llambías wrote: > >> A full specification of the rules would go something like this: >> >> We define an "atomic bridi" as a bridi that contains no bridi >> negations, no (outer) quantifiers, and no (logical) connectives. It >> corresponds to an atomic formula of pedicate logic. (In an atomic >> bridi, the order of arguments can be changed freely with SE and/or FA, >> without changing meaning). > > It can contain bridi negations inside a sumti; these aren't affected by the > transform, unless you apply it to the bridi inside the sumti. e.g. {lo na > gerku cu batci mi}. Yes, you are right, and the same goes for quantifiers and logical connectives, say inside a nu abstraction, or inside a relative clause. Those are not really handled at all by basic vanilla first-order predicate logic. We are only concerned here with bridi negation, (outer) quantifiers and (logical) connectives at the main bridi level. >> The rules to transform a general bridi into >> wfb form are as follows: >> >> Step 1: write all afterthought connectives in forethought form. ... > In {su'oda na broda gi'e brode}, you have to convert {gi'e} to forethought > before moving {na}, else it won't find a {ge} to stop it. Correct, that's what the "Step 1" is for. (One can ignore Step 1 if one is comfortable in determining the scope of afterthought connectives, which is not always so obvious as in the forethought form.) > This transform also applies to non-logical connectives, although the result > won't be a logical wfb. E.g.: > ti na gucti li re joi pulgada li so That's not grammatical. Do you mean "ti na gucti be li re joi pulgada be li so"? > -> ti joigi na gucti li re gi pulgada li so > -> ti joigi naku gucti li re gi pulgada li so I would agree those two are equivalent, although who knows what they mean. Non-logical connectives applied to sumti correspond to binary functions in FOPL (except for "fa'u"), but non-logical connectives applied to anything other than sumti are something of a mystery. I don't think they are equivalent to anything in first order predicate logic. 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.