From arosta@uclan.ac.uk Tue Sep 25 08:43:51 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: arosta@uclan.ac.uk X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 25 Sep 2001 15:43:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 33923 invoked from network); 25 Sep 2001 15:34:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by l10.egroups.com with QMQP; 25 Sep 2001 15:34:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO com1.uclan.ac.uk) (193.61.255.3) by mta3 with SMTP; 25 Sep 2001 15:34:32 -0000 Received: from gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk by com1.uclan.ac.uk with SMTP (Mailer); Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:12:06 +0100 Received: from DI1-Message_Server by gwise-gw1.uclan.ac.uk with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:43:04 +0100 Message-Id: X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.2 Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 16:42:41 +0100 To: pycyn , lojban Subject: Re: [lojban] Set of answers encore Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline From: And Rosta X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11025 pc: #>>> 09/23/01 07:05pm >>> #In a message dated 9/22/2001 4:43:32 PM Central Daylight Time, pycyn@aol.c= om=20 #writes: #> In a message dated 9/22/2001 1:25:58 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 #> a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com writes:=20 #> >> da zo'u la djan jinvi/krici tu'odu'u da -extension tu'odu'u=20 #>> ce'u pa moi merko -president=20 #>>=20 #>> -- i.e. as not substantively different from the treatment of djuno.=20 #>>=20 #>=20 #> Not so: the corresponding analysis would be=20 #> {da de poi du'u da extension of ledu'u ce'u pamoi merko president zo'u l= a=20 #> djan jinvi de}=20 #> However, in working the details of this out, I see that it does work as= =20 #> well as well in this case as in the {djuno} one. I keep forgetting that= =20 #> when you say "extension" you mean the propositions that such-and-such i= s=20 #> the extension, not the set itself (I think this ahs been a problem for a= =20 #> while -- back to whether the things that go in for {makau} are answers).= =20=20 #> I'll try to remember this is the extension-claim theory, not the extensi= on=20 #> theory, which is very different.=20 #=20 #But then next morning, looking at it again, I see that it is very differen= t,=20 #for I doubt that John (even this one) even thinks about "the extension of = "=20 #some property. In fact, I doubt that most people, who use indirect questio= n=20 #all the time, would even understand the locution. So, if the property is= =20 #within the scope of the believing, where, because of intensioonality, it = has=20 #to be that property and not something incidentally equivalent to it, then = I=20 #would say that it was very rarely the case that anyone had an opinion abou= t=20 #who the first American President was. But, of course, the other version,= =20 #which moves the property outside still works ok. Jorge raised this objection at the time that I originally made the proposal= . My answer is that if the extension-claim analysis correctly characterizes the logic of indirect questions, then if John knows that 'Bill' is the answ= er to 'Who went', then John knows that {Bill} is the extension of the category of goers. However, there is a valid case not quite covered by my extension-claim analysis. An example is where John knows that Chelsea is Bill's daughter but doesn't know that Bill has no other daughters [by Hillary, that is, I hasten to add, having watched the splendid Primary Colours twice in the last week). So, as it were, John knows who Bill's daughters=20 are, but doesn't know he knows. The extension-claim analysis can=20 handle John's actual beliefs thus: la djan djuno tu'odu'u da cmima tu'o -extension be tu'odu'u la bil patfu= ce'u And the version where we deintensionalize our description of John's knowledge can, I very very very tentatively think, be done thus: da poi ke'a du'u de -extension tu'odu'u la bil patfu ce'u zo'u la djan dj= uno da I am very much not convinced that this solution is valid, but if it isn't, = it's just a further instance of the more general problem of how to refer to se djuno and se jinvi extensionally rather than intensionally, and any solution of the more general problem will also resolve the residual problems with the extension-claim analysis. As an example of the general problem, how do you say "John knows that Bill is not king of France", when John has never had the thought "Bill is not king of France"? And likewise for krici/jinvi. --And.