Message-Id: <m0rfd2z-00001GC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Sat, 18 Feb 1995 00:27:29 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@FINHUTC.hut.fi>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Not an atom of meaning in it (was: replies, etc.)
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  (Your message of Fri, 17 Feb 95 10:49:53 EST.)
              <199502171549.AA07565@access2.digex.net>
Content-Length: 1077
Lines: 21

John:
> > I assume that Lojban is supposed to translate in pred calc and that that
> > is one of its guiding ideas. You can translate {pa} simply as "1", while
> > in contrast, {Q-kau} translates in a much more complex way.
> Well, actually it's not so simple.  The translation of "pa" as a quantifier
> is something like "Ex Ay F(y) => x=y", which is hardly atomic. When you
> need "pa" as a number, "li pa", it's even worse, and you have to drag in
> one of various set theories which explain what a number is:  "lo'i pamei"
> with Cantor (and Jim Carter), or something else for von Neumann set theory.
> Ugly.

Perhaps you're asking too much of these translations. After all, we
don't expect pred logic to define "gerku": the meaning of {gerku}
for this sort of translation is an unanalysed predicate gerku().
"pa" as in "li pa" can be treated as an individual, a
constant, for the purposes of this translation. As for "pa" as quantifier,
we could translate all the cardinal numbers in {PA da poi broda} as:
  Ex set(x), cardinality(x,n) Ay member(y,x) -> broda(y)

---
And