From pycyn@aol.com Sun Mar 10 06:35:39 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: unknown); 10 Mar 2002 14:35:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 97028 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2002 14:35:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m9.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Mar 2002 14:35:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d02.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.34) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Mar 2002 14:35:38 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d02.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.167.a1cb28d (26119) for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:35:33 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <167.a1cb28d.29bcc934@aol.com> Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002 09:35:32 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_167.a1cb28d.29bcc934_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: 13598 --part1_167.a1cb28d.29bcc934_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/9/2002 8:25:35 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes: > I- naku no lo su'o broda cu brode > O- naku ro lo su'o broda cu brode > > These last four forms should all work in pc's system as well. > Well, no, since I don't diostinguish between {lo ro broda} and {lo su'o broda} (which is why I can use {lo broda} for the importing quantifiers throughout. The relative simplicity here is an artefact of the logical system used, which has these reading privileged. Did we use restricted quantification as basic, the + forms would be simple and - complex. Did we use Aristotle's own system, the affirmative + and the negative - would be simple. I suspect there are ways to do the same for any other combination you like. But the differences come down to notation, not any significant differences in logic. In Lojban the notational differences do arise out of different readings of fundamentals, and, if it can be worked out, we should follow a consistent coourse through that. But, note, the differences arise at the periphery of meaningful discourse, so decisions are rarely going to make a differnce. --part1_167.a1cb28d.29bcc934_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/9/2002 8:25:35 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


I- naku no lo su'o broda cu brode
O- naku ro lo su'o broda cu brode

These last four forms should all work in pc's system as well.


Well, no, since I don't diostinguish between {lo ro broda} and {lo su'o broda} (which is why I can use {lo broda} for the importing quantifiers throughout.

<Notice that in the set notation, the group that does
not require the import condition is A-,E-,I+,O+.
That condition is implicit already in the first part.
Some people say that the same happens in English:

A- All S are P
E- No S is P
I+ Some S are P
O+ Not all S are P>

The relative simplicity here is an artefact of the logical system used, which has these reading privileged.  Did we use restricted quantification as basic, the + forms would be simple and - complex.  Did we use Aristotle's own system, the affirmative + and the negative - would be simple.  I suspect there are ways to do the same for any other combination you like.  But the differences come down to notation, not any significant differences in logic.  In Lojban the notational differences do arise out of different readings of fundamentals, and, if it can be worked out, we should follow a consistent coourse through that.  But, note, the differences arise at the periphery of meaningful discourse, so decisions are rarely going to make a differnce.

 --part1_167.a1cb28d.29bcc934_boundary--