Return-Path: <@SEGATE.SUNET.SE:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi  with smtp
	(Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sBZde-0009acC; Wed, 17 May 95 06:19 EET DST
Message-Id: <m0sBZde-0009acC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 3350A498 ; Wed, 17 May 1995 5:19:08 +0100
Date:         Tue, 16 May 1995 23:17:31 -0400
Reply-To:     DPT@HUMA1.BITNET
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         DPT@HUMA1.BITNET
Subject:      Re: TECH: Negation
X-To:         jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU, lojban@cuvmb.BITNET
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
In-Reply-To:  <01HQL0GVLH0IBHEP0U@NETOP6.HARVARD.EDU>
Content-Length: 560
Lines: 18

I wrote:
 > I found this very odd and went and checked the negation paper.  It
 > seems to be correct.

jorge wrote:
 > I think it's not correct. Does the negation paper really say it is?
 > In any case, the De Morgan's laws part of the paper is not really
 > very trustworthy, I think.

No, it doesn't actually say {ra}; I hadn't read the DeMorgan's law
section, and was relying on the earlier portions (which might be read
to imply {ra}).

 > > Please tell me I'm misinterpreting something.
 >
 > You're misinterpreting something.

.i ki'e mu'o mi'e. dilyn.