Return-Path: <@FINHUTC.HUT.FI:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> Received: from FINHUTC.hut.fi by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #14) id m0pWVJq-0000PgC; Tue, 15 Feb 94 21:20 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 2817; Tue, 15 Feb 94 21:20:14 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 2815; Tue, 15 Feb 1994 21:20:14 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 3556; Tue, 15 Feb 1994 20:19:22 +0100 Date: Tue, 15 Feb 1994 18:30:00 GMT Reply-To: i.alexander.bra0125@oasis.icl.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: i.alexander.bra0125@OASIS.ICL.CO.UK Subject: Re: TECH: Quantifiers (was: cukta) X-To: lojbab@access.digex.net X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1867 Lines: 38 la kau,n. tu'a mi spuda di'e > > ... but there is no place in such a description where a prenex could have > > occurred. If it had been {ro da poi [de zo'u:] da klama de}, fair enough, > > but it appears from this that {ro klama be de} refers to all goers to one > > specific place, since {de} is quantified *outside* the description, in > > whatever bridi it occupies. > Yes, it is. However, "ro klama" means "ro lo klama", which can be transformed > WLG into "ro DA poi klama", where DA is an otherwise-unique member of the > da-series. The quantification of this "DA" precedes that of "de", so the > fully explicit prenex-normal-form is: > ro DA [su'o] DE zo'u co'e DA poi klama de > where the "co'e" represents the whole selbri in which this description is > embedded. Every quantified expression in Lojban can be transformed into > a form in which the quantifier is attached to a variable. Therefore, > even though "de" is quantified outside the description, so is the implicit > "ro DA", and the "ro DA" is outside the "de". I'm not sure how this works, given that {DA} is restricted (by the {poi} clause) *after* the prenex. Doesn't this select a subset of the {DA} introduced by the prenex? Or does the restriction apply throughout? My instinct is that you need to be able to subselect, but I can't quite wrap my brain round a selection which depends on the value of {de}, which was quantified after {DA}, and hence potentially depends on {DA} - a sort of mutual recursion. (I suspect that this is a mirage, but it's still confusing.) For any given {DA}, we can choose a {de}, such that some predicate holds for those {DA}s which {klama de}. .oiro'e I've already given the expansion I was originally assuming, with {de} quantified inside the (virtual) restriction, and this looks to me like a different claim. mu'o mi'e .i,n.