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 m0qnAEY-00005XC; Tue, 20 Sep 94 21:48 EET DST Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9788; Tue, 20 Sep 94 21:46:38 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 9784; Tue, 20 Sep 1994 21:46:38 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0247; Tue, 20 Sep 1994 20:45:25 +0200 Date: Tue, 20 Sep 1994 14:17:44 EDT Reply-To: jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU Sender: Lojban list From: Jorge Llambias Subject: Re: Chief logician? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1719 Lines: 58 Randall says: > There is a good reason for the precedence to go the other way, > unless you also reverse the usual convention for implicit quantification: > > the point is that P[John and James] means roughly the same thing as > "For all x in {John,James}, P[x]", and, similarly, P[Mary and Sally] ^^^ or, I think > means roughly the same thing as "For some x in {Mary,Sally}, P[x]"; > where two of these connected arguments appear in a sentence, one has > essentially the same problem one has with the usual form of implicit > quantification as in > > Someone loves everyone > > versus > > Everyone is loved by someone Yes, I see your point. In fact, the paper on connectives doesn't really mention that case. It says that broda ije brode ija brodi is grouped from left to right: (broda ije brode) ija brodi and from there I generalized to assume that the first connective is bound tighter. Maybe it should be the other way around when the connectives are in different terms. There is still going to be counterintuitive cases, though: da prami la djan e la djeimyz Someone loves John and James means the same as: la djan e la djeimyz se prami da John and James are loved by someone in both cases, the quantification is: For some da; for all x in {John; James}. > Of course, I know that the underlying "expanded" form of the sentence > does not involve application of logical connectives to arguments; > I'm a logician, remember? Of course :) But you did mention something about negation of arguments being allowed in Loglan... Jorge