Date:  Fri, 28 Nov 1997 05:18:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711281018.FAA20795@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: And Rosta <a.rosta@UCLAN.AC.UK>
Organization: University of Central Lancashire
Subject:      still on nu & fasnu...
X-To:         LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
Status: OR
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001
Content-Length: 2520
X-From-Space-Date: Fri Nov 28 05:18:49 1997
X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU

Lojbab:
[I had written:]
> >> >Also, it makes sense to say {mi nitcu lo nu broda} if and only
> >> >if it does not make sense to say {mi nitcu lo fasnu}

This is assuming that nu is an event-type, that {lo nu broda cu
fasnu} makes sense and therefore that fasnu means something like
"event-type x1 is instantiated". In this case, what I said is
wrong. Every fasnu is a nu, and {mi nitcu lo fasnu} means "I need
there to be an instance of instantiated event-type x2".

Of course, if "fasnu" means an actual event, then what I oroginally
said was correct, and {lo nu broda cu fasnu} is false.

> >> Since the statement "lo nu broda cu fasnu" works, then lo nu broda and lo
> >> fasnu have identical features semantically.
> >
> >Come on! That's bollocks. "lo nanmu cu remna" works, but "lo nanmu"
> >and "lo remna" don't have identical features.
> I'm obvsiously missing some point here.  If you do not claim that the
> two (lo nu broda and lo fasnu) are identical semantically, then how come
> you can claim the biconditional?  maybe its the hour of the night.

I was mainly overreacting to your apparent reasoning. But note that
I originally said "P iff *not* Q" - "lo nu" works iff "lo fasnu"
does *not* work.

But that may not be correct: it all depends on what nu and fasnu
mean, and this is not settled yet.

> >I think you're suffering from Having-to-answer-too-much-email-in-
> >too-little-time Syndrome.
>
> Maybe it is that too.  Probably I should drop the discussion since I never
> seem to convince anyone of anything and even Cowan says

with a smiley

> I make no sense. Your reactions suggest that we are close to
> getting back to the ancient discussion about needing lo tanxe that
> led to enormous largely pointless volume 2 years ago (indeed it was
> 2 years ago Thanksgiving that we had something like 200 postings in
> a single day on the list or some similar nonsense).

I don't think it was pointless. No conclusions were reached, but
now we come to it again, I feel that more progress is being made
and that red-herrings are more easily spottable.

I realize that to many these discussions are arcane, pedantic and
pointless. However, I don't see how Lojban can fulfil its claim
to be what it says it is (logical, consistent with design principles,
etc.), if we don't have these discussions to ensure that it does
fulfil its claim.
It's not surprising that in dealing with tricky problems, and
with pc the only professional logician among us, we end up
going round the houses somewhat.

Tara,

And