From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Mon Mar 30 07:10:16 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Mon, 30 Mar 92 07:10 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA09302; Mon, 30 Mar 92 07:07:24 EST Received: from pucc.Princeton.EDU by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA02743; Mon, 30 Mar 92 03:42:02 -0500 Message-Id: <9203300842.AA02743@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU by pucc.Princeton.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2746; Mon, 30 Mar 92 03:41:26 EST Received: by PUCC (Mailer R2.08 ptf016) id 3722; Mon, 30 Mar 92 03:41:12 EST Date: Mon, 30 Mar 1992 01:43:34 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: logical connective question from Mark S. X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO Mark Shoulson asks: > >\juf sent 015 >\zoi se mu'i le du'u la cev. na zanru lo xlali >\luj se mu'i le du'u la *** na zanru lo xlali >\gl 2nd because the the_sentence: that_named *** not approve a/the bad > >\zoi valsi .a le xlali _sel- ,zukte! >\luj valsi .a le xlali se zukte >\gl word or the bad 2nd act > >The {.a} makes sense in English, but I'm not so sure in Lojban. We need >a conjunction paper pretty badly. By the common method of expansion >Colin often uses with devastating effect (devastating to those who >misuse conjunctions), we get > {ga la cev. na zanru lo xlali valsi gi la cev. na zanru lo xlali selzukte} > "[either] 'god' doesn't approve-of bad-words, [or, and possibly both] > 'god' doesn't approve of bad things-acted." > >Hmmm. Doesn't seem quite right. Colin, you're good at >conjunctions, what do you think? Nora answers: The nature of "na" is such that you cannot distribute it like this. You must first move it up front (to the prenex) before using Colin's expansion technique. (See the negation paper for extensive examples and explanation). This gives: \zoi se mu'i le du'u na zo'u la cev. zanru lo xlali \gl 2nd because the the_sentence: not | that_named *** approve a/the bad \zoi valsi .a le xlali _sel- ,zukte! \gl word or the bad 2nd act Or "It is false that (la cev. zanru A .a B) This expands as predicted, but correctly to: Or "It is false that (la cev. zanru A) .ija (la cev. zanru B) This ends up working like DeMorgan's Rule "It is false that la cev. zanru A, *and* it is false that la cev. zanru B." This is what was wanted. co'omi'e. noras. ---- Nora LeChevalier, Secretary/Treasurer, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 lojbab@grebyn.com