Message-Id: <m0qtEdQ-00001dC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Fri, 7 Oct 1994 08:40:18 -0400
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: A couple of questions
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 1344
Lines: 29

JL>> If they are the same, the statement "lo [unicorn] cu brode"
JL>>    should be false, since noda cu [unicorn].
JL>
JL>If no unicorns exist in the world where the statement is used, then the
JL>statement is false in that world, yes.

1. Therefore the statement "Elves have pointed ears" is false since
there is no such thing as an elf.  Likewise definitional statements
"Elves are humanoid" is also false even if definitional.  How can you
describe the properties of a hypothetical but non-existent object if any
statement about such an object is false.

2. If statements about non-existent objects are false, then their
negation is true.  We can possibly weasel around this with "na" negation
(and I think I did in the negation paper), but I am not sure.

3> And then there is the argument that all statements about non-existent
objects being equivalent to each other, since all are statements about
the members of the empty set.

I don't pretend to know the answers, but this is one of those questions
that comes up again and again and I never am satisfied enough with
whatever explanation is proposed to internalize it.

But the status quo remains, as far as I know, that "lo [unicorn] cu
brode" is not the same as da poi [unicorn] cu broda.  Cowan or pc are
welcome to correct me, since they supposedly reolved this once before.

lojbab