From pycyn@aol.com Tue Jan 01 07:41:41 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 1 Jan 2002 15:41:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 94265 invoked from network); 1 Jan 2002 15:41:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 Jan 2002 15:41:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d01.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.33) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 Jan 2002 15:41:40 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d01.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.193.91b6d2 (30954) for ; Tue, 1 Jan 2002 10:41:35 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <193.91b6d2.296332af@aol.com> Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 10:41:35 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical connective question. To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_193.91b6d2.296332af_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12723 --part1_193.91b6d2.296332af_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/1/2002 4:17:03 AM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes: > . When you say something like AND (je), are you > asserting the falsehood of combinations that you list as 0? AND is > TFFF. You are asserting that X and Y being true is acceptable. But > are you also asserting that X and Y can't both be false (and > likewise the other two combinations)? Or are you just limiting your > assertion to the true entries? > Well, by definition, you can only assert what is true (strictly, what you take and intend others to take as true). But, in the process, you do in effect also assert THAT the others are false, since you can't have the same sentence being both true and false. The assertion is inferential, not direct, but is binding just the same (if that assertion turns out to be false, so does the original, for example). --part1_193.91b6d2.296332af_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 1/1/2002 4:17:03 AM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes:


.  When you say something like AND (je), are you
asserting the falsehood of combinations that you list as 0?  AND is
TFFF.  You are asserting that X and Y being true is acceptable.  But
are you also asserting that X and Y can't both be false (and
likewise the other two combinations)?  Or are you just limiting your
assertion to the true entries?


Well, by definition, you can only assert what is true (strictly, what you take and intend others to take as true).  But, in the process, you do in effect also assert THAT the others are false, since you can't have the same sentence being both true and false.  The assertion is inferential, not direct, but is binding just the same (if that assertion turns out to be false, so does the original, for example).  --part1_193.91b6d2.296332af_boundary--