From sentto-44114-3241-962028790-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Mon Jun 26 14:18:51 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: shoulson-kli@meson.org Received: (qmail 1176 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 14:18:49 -0000 Received: from zash.lupine.org (205.186.156.18) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 26 Jun 2000 14:18:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 1562 invoked by uid 40001); 26 Jun 2000 14:13:14 -0000 Delivered-To: kli-mark@kli.org Received: (qmail 1559 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 14:13:14 -0000 Received: from ch.egroups.com (207.138.41.144) by zash.lupine.org with SMTP; 26 Jun 2000 14:13:14 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: sentto-44114-3241-962028790-mark=kli.org@returns.onelist.com Received: from [10.1.10.35] by ch.egroups.com with NNFMP; 26 Jun 2000 14:13:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 13522 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2000 14:13:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m1.onelist.org with QMQP; 26 Jun 2000 14:13:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r17.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.71) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Jun 2000 14:13:07 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id a.a4.6338137 (4534) for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:12:57 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: To: lojban@egroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 From: pycyn@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@egroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:12:56 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:Trivalent Logics Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I'm not sure whether there is anything readable about three-valued (or any more-than-two-valued) logic -- I have trouble with most of them and they're part of my job (but I have a strong bivalent prejudice, too). Most books on the topic or on Philosophy of Logic or Non-Standard (Deviant) Logics quickly get off into either constructing a calculus for the notion or trying to make sense (or show you can't make sense) of the third (and sometimes of the first two as well) truth values. In Aymara (as I understand it from the text), the point is less about truth than about certainty and commitment. So the three positions are roughly thoroughly committed to, thoroughly committed against, and uncommitted (leaving the notion of commitment vague). Different functors indicate different kinds of commitment depending upon the basic situation, the commitment to the unmarked claim. If I am committed to p, then I am committed to necessarily p, but if I am not committed to p (either uncommitted or committed against) the I am committed against necessarily p. And so on through all the conectives. As a tool, this could make for finer distinctions in the commitment categories of lb, starting with making the category itself much clearer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Make music with anyone, anywhere, through FREE Internet recording studio software. FREE software download! http://click.egroups.com/1/3734/4/_/17627/_/962028792/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com