From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Jan 15 20:43:48 1996 Received: from VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (vms.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id UAA25851 for ; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 20:43:12 -0500 Message-Id: <199601160143.UAA25851@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by VMS.DC.LSOFT.COM (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 3609B0C7 ; Mon, 15 Jan 1996 20:04:59 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 00:16:41 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: tech:logical matters X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 3466 > &: I think it's likely that people who thought they were arguing with > you about existential import were in reality arguing about restricted > quantifiers. - That is, there really was a communication failure. > pc: I don't think so. Oh well. It at least reports how I was understanding the debate. > Looking back at the record, I see that I was always careful to > distinguish between Ax:Fx => Gx and (AxFx)Gx, which wd have gone right past me if I wasn't concentrating > between _ro da poi broda cu brode_ and all the other forms, between > AxFx and (AxFx)Gx, and to say what the differences were. And, so far > as I can tell, everyone else in the discussion followed my lead in > making those distinctions, except that they insisted that > 1) _ro da poi broda_ did not mean anything different from _ro broda_ > (etc.), > 2) AxFx did not entail ExFx, > 3) (AxFx)Gx did not entail (ExFx)Gx, > 4) (AxFx)Gx did not mean anything different from Ax:Fx=>Gx and > 5) that only the latter form was a correct symbolization of "All F are > G." > and I repeatedly pointed out that 1) might be true now but was > historically inaccurate and left a major gap in the the Lojban system, > that 2) was simply false, that 3)& 4) were generally taken to be false > (though the symbolism was used by all sorts) and that 5) was flat false > (with citations). (1) may not be true; rather it may just be thought to be true, because noone but you has felt a need for restricted quantifiers. Why would the truth of (1) leave a major gap? For (2-4) I am happy to take your word. For (5), I'm not happy to believe you (or disbelieve you). I don't think we should get bogged down by a discussion of English semantics. The issue is whether Ax:Fx=>Gx is the correct symbolization of {ro broda cu brode} and of {ro da poi kea broda cu brode}. I would still vote that it should be, but maybe there are great virtues to restricted quantification that I am failing to recognize. > (BTW, the discussion started from my saying that, if the implicit > internal quantifier in _lo broda_ was _ro_, then logically all forms > of _lo broda_ required that there be brodas. Well, {lo broda} says there are brodas, because it is {suo pa lo broda}. But why should {suo no lo ro broda} mean that there are brodas? But that inner quantifier with {lo} is irksome anyway. > For those who denied that -- most people in the discussion, I think > -- there is no way to get existential import (without adding "and there > are brodas" somewhere) because, while _(su'o) lo (ro) broda_ does say > there are brodas, because of the _su'o_, _ro lo (ro) broda_ would not, > for neither _ro_ would have that implication). The method is {suo lo suo broda} - that guarantees there are brodas. > I take it that the fact that my say-so was not enough to even get > someone to check whether there was something more in that note they > half remembered and generalized upon is a reductio ad absurdum on any > claim that I have some influence around here. In the days when you weren't on the list, invocation of your name constituted recourse to the ultimate authority, on pertinent matters - and lojbab's reports on "phonecons" with pc, the gospel. But for authority to keep its force it must remain distant & cloaked in mystery. When the high priest comes under the gaze of the public he is liable to be presumed fallible. coo, mie and