From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:54:07 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 8894 invoked from network); 24 Sep 1997 12:47:29 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 24 Sep 1997 12:47:29 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <2.3885BC6B@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Wed, 24 Sep 1997 14:47:18 +0100 Date: Wed, 24 Sep 1997 13:45:26 BST Reply-To: Don Wiggins Sender: Lojban list From: Don Wiggins Subject: Re: na'e X-To: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1098 Lines: 36 Message-ID: My interpretation of na'e from the refgram, put into symbolic logic is: Let f and f' be selbri and x and x' be sumti then na'e (f (x)) = E f': (f' != f ) ^ f' (x) ^ !f (x) Now, it is that last term that f (x) is false is the "na'e entails na" contention in a nutshell. The alternative definition would have only two terms. > 1) li vo na'e sumji li re li re From my definition this would be false as sumji (4, 2, 2) is true. Removing the extra term makes it true as stated. Similiarly, f (na'ebo (x)) = E x': (x' != x) ^ f (x') ^ !f (x) > 2) na'ebo li vo sumji li re li re Here, both definitions agree because no other sumti can be found that fulfills the first two terms. Consider, .i na'ebo li vo zmadu li re Again there is a conflict because 4 > 2 is true. According to my definition this is false. I believe that both definitions would be self-consistent (but it needs a logic whizz to come up with a proof). Therefore, it is simply a matter of >defining< which form of "na'e" we want. In my opinion, the refgram states that "na'e" entails "na". ni'oco'omi'e dn.