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 #1) id m0qpjbX-00005IC; Tue, 27 Sep 94 22:58 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4929; Tue, 27 Sep 94 22:58:35 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 4928; Tue, 27 Sep 1994 22:58:34 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 9621; Tue, 27 Sep 1994 21:55:42 +0100 Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 16:09:53 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Analogy X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 901 Lines: 27 la djan cusku di'e > 1) ro da poi broda cu brode > 2) ro da poi broda zo'u da brode > 3) ro broda cu brode > > are strictly equivalent in meaning, and imply nothing about the existence > of widgets. I agree that those are equivalent. I don't see any difference between {lo broda} and {da poi broda} either, and they can be shown to be equivalent using the equivalence of (1) and (3): lo broda cu brode <==> naku naku lo broda cu brode <==> naku ro broda naku cu brode <==> naku ro da poi broda naku cu brode <==> naku naku da poi broda cu brode <==> da poi broda cu brode If there is no broda that is in relationship brode, then the claim should be false, whether it is made using {lo broda} or {da poi broda}. And the absence of a {lo broda} may or may not be because it is an empty class. Why are they supposedly different? Jorge