Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu (uga.cc.uga.edu [128.192.1.5]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with SMTP id UAA21730 for ; Tue, 12 Sep 1995 20:10:58 -0400 Message-Id: <199509130010.UAA21730@locke.ccil.org> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R3) with BSMTP id 8399; Tue, 12 Sep 95 19:56:27 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 4764; Tue, 12 Sep 1995 19:55:26 -0400 Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 22:18:57 GMT Reply-To: ia@stryx.demon.co.uk Sender: Lojban list From: Iain Alexander Subject: Culture gap X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Tue Sep 12 20:11:01 1995 X-From-Space-Address: <@uga.cc.uga.edu:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> It is becoming apparent that there are different cultures with regard to logic. PC comes from the culture of Pure Logic, where e.g. certain sets are implicitly assumed to be non-empty, and numeric quantifiers are handled in a way which makes them commute, but doesn't allow them to be expanded independently. I come from the culture of Applied Logic, where any set may be empty, and numeric quantifiers do not commute. Unfortunately, it may not be easy to play the usual Lojban trick and allow both cultures to coexist, since logic is so fundamental to the structure and purpose of the language. The best hope at the moment seems to be that we might agree on ways of using combinations of PA to make our different prejudices explicit. Technical details of the known problems and some potential solutions are in a separate post. If anyone can suggest another, perhaps metalinguistic, way of allowing our conflicting views, of how best to express the underlying logic, to coexist, I'd be pleased to hear it. -- Iain Alexander ia@stryx.demon.co.uk I.Alexander@bra0125.wins.icl.co.uk