From - Tue Sep 23 10:51:02 1997
Message-ID: <3427D750.56CD@locke.ccil.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 10:51:02 -0400
From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Organization: Lojban Peripheral
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Lojban List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: Re: RV: na'e entails na?
References: <199709230319.WAA21965@locke.ccil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length:  421


Chris Bogart wrote:

> [Y]our definition (that na'e entails
> na), plus your claim (that any set of arguments
> have *some* relationship)
> together imply that na'e will be logically
> equivalent to na.

But not all relationships are relevant, only those
that are reasonable scalar alternatives to the one
denied.

-- 
John Cowan	http://www.ccil.org/~cowan		cowan@ccil.org
			e'osai ko sarji la lojban