Date: Fri, 26 Dec 1997 16:42:36 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712262142.QAA04036@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Sender: Lojban list From: "=?iso-8859-1?Q?Jorge_J._Llamb=EDas?=" Subject: Re: xor questions (was Re: indirect Qs (was Re: On logji lo X-To: lojban To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 1107 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 26 16:42:42 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Lojbab: >li pa cu namcu .iku'i li pa na du lo namcu >because the latter is not constrained to specifically identify li pa Is that a new rule, that {du} only accepts specific sumti? So this according to you would be false: da poi namcu zo'u li pa du da There is a number x, such that 1 = x. Is there a point for such a strange rule? >du is multiplace and amthematical equality is transitive. Thus >li pa du lo namcu >.ijebo li re du lo namcu >.inaja li pa du li re lo namcu No, that doesn't follow at all. You're reasoning as if {lo namcu} were a specific reference, which of course it isn't. This is what each of your three sentences mean: li pa du da poi namcu 1 = some x which is a number TRUE li re du de poi namcu 2 = some x which is a number TRUE li pa du li re du di poi namcu 1 = 2 = some x which is a number FALSE Somehow you want to make the third follow from the first two, which does not make sense. >Did I getthose connectives right? The connectives were right, the logic behind them wasn't. co'o mi'e xorxes