From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Fri Jan 5 18:19:41 1996 Received: from wnt.dc.lsoft.com (wnt.dc.lsoft.com [205.186.43.7]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with ESMTP id SAA27424 for ; Fri, 5 Jan 1996 18:19:31 -0500 Message-Id: <199601052319.SAA27424@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM (205.186.43.4) by wnt.dc.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.0a) with SMTP id 96646850 ; Fri, 5 Jan 1996 17:52:32 -0500 Date: Fri, 5 Jan 1996 14:27:23 -0800 Reply-To: "John E. Clifford" Sender: Lojban list From: "John E. Clifford" Subject: Re: misc replies to and X-To: lojban list To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1179 &: {lo nu la djordj ualas cu merko gugde ralju cu na fasnu} means {da zou da nu la djordj ualas cu merko gugde ralju kei gie da na fasnu}, which is false, since {no da fasnu gie na fasnu}. The problem is that statements like {xamgu gie nu la djordj ualas cu merko gugde ralju} will necessarily be false, even if it would have been good if GW were president. pc: We can argue about the expansion (and about the relevance of &'s shift from lojbab's _le_ to _lo_and whether a compound bridi tail can be called a statement) but the argument does not go through however these issues are decided. The crux is whether _da nu la djordj ualas cu merko gugde ralju_ entails _da fasnu_. The argument above overtly assumes that it does. But, of course, this is circular, since the point of this argument is just to prove that non-occurring events (or whatever -- pick your favorite word) do not exist, the point just just assumed (well, the contrapositive, and so equivalent, of it). Any good arguments for the point directly? There may be, but, since we have not clarified what _nu_ clauses refer to at all, it is probably premature to come up with them. pc>|83