From @uga.cc.uga.edu:lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Tue Jun 20 00:24:42 1995 Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk by stryx.demon.co.uk with SMTP id AA3465 ; Tue, 20 Jun 95 00:24:40 BST Received: from punt2.demon.co.uk via puntmail for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk; Mon, 19 Jun 95 15:00:18 GMT Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by punt2.demon.co.uk id aa10616; 19 Jun 95 16:00 +0100 Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 5000; Mon, 19 Jun 95 10:58:05 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0327; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 10:58:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 11:00:00 EDT Reply-To: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Sender: Lojban list From: jorge@phyast.pitt.edu Subject: Re: pc answers X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Iain Alexander Message-ID: <9506191600.aa10616@punt2.demon.co.uk> Status: R la djer cusku di'e > >> 2. E(z1)(w1) t(z1,w1). For some z1, For each w1, touches(z1, w1). > >> 5. (w1)E(z1) t(z1,w1). > jorge said: > >2. says that there is at least one man, such that he touches each > > of the three dogs. > >5. says that each of the three dogs is touched by at least one man. > >In 2., it has to be the same man that does the touching, while in 5. > >it can be a different one for each dog. > djer adds: > In (2.) it does not have to be the same man [singular] that does the > touching. Yes it does. At least one man has to touch all three dogs. It is irrelvant what the other two men do. In (5.) it is not necessary that any single one of the men touch all three dogs. > (2) states, "for some z1..." where z1 is clearly defined by > pc to be the set {x,y,z} of three men. That's right. > We have the existential > quantifier E on z1. It is read as "for at least one..and less than > all". No, the last part is not claimed. It could very well be true for all of them. The claim is that it is true for at least one. If it also happens to be true for all, then the claim is still true for at least one. Jorge