From pycyn@aol.com Thu May 24 16:55:44 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_3); 24 May 2001 23:55:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 54869 invoked from network); 24 May 2001 23:55:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 24 May 2001 23:55:03 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d08.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.40) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 May 2001 23:54:58 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v30.22.) id r.89.726d44c (3963) for ; Thu, 24 May 2001 19:54:54 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <89.726d44c.283ef94e@aol.com> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001 19:54:54 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Lessons (th' ol' if-then thang) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_89.726d44c.283ef94e_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10519 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 7245 --part1_89.726d44c.283ef94e_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for checking back through that stuff for me. I'll still give it a skim, but my memory was that it was not very helpful -- complaints but no solutions, and the complaints somewhat misguided. As I have said (see webpage mentioned earlier and now at least organized, though only marginally readable) {ganai gi} is a perfectly good premise but a tricky conclusion. It is true if the antecedent is false or if the consequent is true, regardless of the other piece. But not everything true is relevant or interesting, so, when challenged, we require the defender to come up with something a little better than the sort of stuff (i.e., the one component solutions) I and my roommate, Harve Bennett's baby brother, used to use as grad students. Real conditional proofs -- from acceptable conditionals or generalizations of the appropriate sort. O fourse, this does not stop jokers from trying but it slows them down. And we can use {va'o} if wee have to or are really prissy. --part1_89.726d44c.283ef94e_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks for checking back through that stuff for me.  I'll still give it a
skim, but my memory was that it was not very helpful -- complaints but no
solutions, and the complaints somewhat misguided.
As I have said (see webpage mentioned earlier and now at least organized,
though only marginally readable) {ganai gi} is a perfectly good premise but a
tricky conclusion.  It is true if the antecedent is false or if the
consequent is true, regardless of the other piece.  But not everything true
is relevant or interesting, so, when challenged, we require the defender to
come up with something a little better than the sort of stuff (i.e., the one
component solutions) I and my roommate, Harve Bennett's baby brother, used to
use as grad students.  Real conditional proofs -- from acceptable
conditionals or generalizations of the appropriate sort.  O fourse, this does
not stop jokers from trying but it slows them down.  And we can use {va'o} if
wee have to or are really prissy. --part1_89.726d44c.283ef94e_boundary--