Date: Thu, 20 Nov 1997 14:43:16 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199711201943.OAA14523@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Lee Daniel Crocker Sender: Lojban list From: "Lee Daniel Crocker (none)" Organization: Piclab (http://www.piclab.com/) Subject: Re: How {lo} works X-To: Lojban Group To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: <199711201846.KAA03063@red.colossus.net> from "bob@MEGALITH.RATTLESNAKE.COM" at Nov 20, 97 01:31:26 pm X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 2035 X-From-Space-Date: Thu Nov 20 14:43:17 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU > One way (not the only way) for {lo} to act is as an operator that > returns true instances of the class, some number of them, one or > more. Speaker and listener examine the instances and agree they > are `true' instances of the class referred to. The problem with looking at {lo} as a function returning referents is that {lo} is clearly defined to be non-specific: it /does not/ return any real cats, it only implies that the appropriate number of real cats exist, and that I am talking about them (but I'm not telling you which ones they are, nor am I even implying that I know which ones they are--just that they exist). Functions have to return specific values; {lo} does not, by definition, and that definition is fixed. > Now, consider my statement that: > > .i mi nelci lo mlatu > > This requires two tests. Firstly, whether {lo mlatu} are truly cats > and, secondly, whether I like them. You can test whether I like > {lo mlatu} by presenting me with some cats and seeing whether I like them. No, you can't. To test the proposition "There exist one or more cats I like", you must present me with /every cat in the world/ until I say "yes, I like that one". Until then, no matter how many cats you have presented to me that I dislike, there still might be one somewhere that I like, so the truth of my statement is undetermined. Of course, you could just short circuit the test by asking me to name or otherwise specify a /particular/ cat that I like. > If you reject this and say, "this cannot be the case", then you are > forbidding certain procedures associated with {lo}, such as using > different cats in the second test rather than the same cats. Yep, that's forbidden. Seems pretty clear from the refgram. -- Lee Daniel Crocker "All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past, are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC