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 m0ri5JI-00001pC; Fri, 24 Feb 95 21:04 EET Message-Id: Received: from FINHUTC.HUT.FI by FINHUTC.hut.fi (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8909; Fri, 24 Feb 95 21:04:30 EET Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin MAILER@SEARN) by FINHUTC.HUT.FI (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 8906; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 21:04:30 +0200 Received: from SEARN.SUNET.SE (NJE origin LISTSERV@SEARN) by SEARN.SUNET.SE (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1256; Fri, 24 Feb 1995 20:00:36 +0100 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 1995 18:52:59 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: Carterian formula (was: Gricean formula?) X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva In-Reply-To: (Your message of Thu, 23 Feb 95 12:11:15 EST.) Content-Length: 526 Lines: 13 John: > This definition doesn't work for Lojban/Loglan, and in fact I have suggested > to Carter that it is buggy in general (see the file "cowan" in the guaspi > directory on www.math.ucla.edu). "x1 has a heart" and "x1 has kidneys" have > the same referent sets (neglecting partly dissected animals, etc.). But we > don't want to call them the same predicate. Is this so even if we don't limit ourselves to this world, but instead allow there to be worlds where things have kidneys but no heart, and vice versa? --- And