From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU Sat Feb 10 09:43:31 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 JAA08910 for ; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 09:43:28 -0500 Message-Id: <199602101443.JAA08910@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 43043C92 ; Sat, 10 Feb 1996 9:11:44 -0500 Date: Sat, 10 Feb 1996 09:10:54 -0500 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Re: tech: logic matters X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-cc: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 4567 >> pc: Again, I am not sure what the choice here is. I guess it is what _ro >> broda cu brode _ is an abbreviation for. I do not know what the >> official line is on that at the moment: is it as xorxes gives it or is >> it _ro da poi broda cu brode_? > >The official line is that it = {ro da poi}. But {ro da poi} has been >being understood as equivalent to {ro da ganai ... gi}. That, I learn >from you, is wrong. So now I think it should be equivalent to >{ro da ganai ... gi}. Nothing is shorthand for {ro da poi}. I *think* that the status quo is that "ro broda" is rather uncertain in definition. Cowan has proposed a change, I think to ro da poi from ro lo. I am uncertain - my leanings were the other way - to "ro le". "ro broda" in my mind is NOT part of the logical expressioj of the language - it is a fuzzy-semantics-naturalistic-shortcut. You should NOT use it if you want to be logically exact. ro da poi da broda is I THINK a claim that broda's exist if I understand pc, and I have no problem with this unless there is some marking of hypotheticalness. If I recall previous pc pronouncements, unicorns exist by the fact that we talk about them from a logical standpoint, so the "universe of discourse" has nothing to do with the real world. (If I have pc wrong on this, it is undoubtedly my fuzzy memory/understanding.) In any event, whatever pc says is the way it will be in the language writeups unless Cowan chooses to ignore pc and no one notices %^) I believe that >I< have assumed that ro lo broda is close to equivalent to ro da ganai ... gi. But that is the "lo " that brings in the conditional existence. >What I do care about is that >{ro (lo) broda} should be equiv to {ro da ganai broda gi}. I think that with the "lo" there, it is the case, as I just said. Without the "lo", it may no longer be the same as with the "lo". In case of dispute between pc and jimc, pc wins by historical "rightness". In the earlier discussions, I don't think that there was ever a time when JCB backed jimc's opinions when it disagreed with pc's. jimc has some assumptions about logic, perhaps from his math background, that differ significantly from what pc has authority status on, and pc can point to references, something I don;t think jimc ever has done. So it is one man's opinions about what logic is or should be vs. another man's expertise as to what it is backed by McCawley and various others he has referenced through the years. >> In a system, specifically Lojban, I tend to see lots of relations, as >> well as relations that could exist if some "illogical" rules are tweaked. >> Thus what jelled for me was different from what others saw. Hence the >> appelation of "Nalgol". > >Sometimes Lojbab makes me think I'm doing Nabjol. I don't think you are that bad, but I sometimes get as frustrated with you as I understand pc got with jim back in the early 80s. The stubbornness is similar. You are just a bit better on staying within the letter of the prescription (other than orthography) while challenging it. jimc rejected the prescription that JCB w3as promulgating. >Lojbab >> This is NOT something that can be settled by a committee. If logic has a >> standard of right and wrong, then we have to support that standard. If >> math uses a different standard, then someone should argue for a DIFFERENT >> short form for that standard. I can't tell in the messages flying by >> whether that is what has resulted from this diuscussion. But the decision >> as to what "ro" means is basically up to pc - on this matter, he IS the CLD. > >Aren't maths and logic two halves of the same island? We shouldn't get >different answers. pc has made clear that there are many schools of logic, schools that make many different assumptions about natlang shortcuts. Mathematical jargon is NOT the version of English/natlangs that we are focussing on in trying to model natural language usage. We want to have a WAY to express what mathematical language needs, and I think we do (including the relatively untested MEX), but it is NOT the underlying version of logic that we have chosen for Loglan/ Lojban. JCB had discussions with Jeff Prothero about a mathematics-based Loglan mod 2, but among other things they agreed that any hyper-Loglan would be something that could probably be argued about in Loglan far better than in English, so we will wait for some later generation of fluent Lojbanists to design Loglan mod 2. lojbab