Return-Path: <@segate.sunet.se:LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@BITMAIL.LSOFT.COM> Received: from segate.sunet.se by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0sxvMJ-0000ZQC; Wed, 27 Sep 95 14:13 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by segate.sunet.se (LSMTP for OpenVMS v0.1a) with SMTP id 567F1D72 ; Wed, 27 Sep 1995 13:12:19 +0200 Date: Wed, 27 Sep 1995 13:06:41 BST Reply-To: Don Wiggins Sender: Lojban list From: Don Wiggins Subject: Re: Mu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 813 Lines: 21 > But it is still presuppositionless (well, free of the > presupposition about the existence of unicorns anyhow). My knee-jerk reaction to an statement, in English, about unicorns is to say that there is no such thing as unicorns. I do not even consider it further and say that it is false. It seems counter-intuitive in a natural language to talk about things which do not exist. However, in maths, it is a totally story. I am perfectly satisfied that Ax: xe{} & false (x) "For all x, such that x is a member of the empty set and the predicate of false of x is true." (The predicate false () is false for any argument). is true and provable. Does lojban adopt the maths convention and allow such assertions to be true? I think my head will start to hurt if this happens ;-) co'o mi'e dn.