From pycyn@aol.com Wed Nov 06 07:16:00 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 6 Nov 2002 15:16:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 28035 invoked from network); 6 Nov 2002 15:15:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Nov 2002 15:15:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r07.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.103) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Nov 2002 15:15:59 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.19a.b322a25 (4012) for ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:15:46 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <19a.b322a25.2afa8c21@aol.com> Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:15:45 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] zo'e = ? su'o de (was Re: What the heck is this crap?) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_19a.b322a25.2afa8c21_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 8.0 for Windows US sub 230 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 16943 --part1_19a.b322a25.2afa8c21_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/5/2002 8:15:43 PM Central Standard Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes: << > imho it would *suck* *ass* if ro were importing though, as > lo'i broda wouldn't be something you could say when the set is > empty, since the inner quantifier is ro. Also I gather that > nonimporting universal quantifier is more standard in logic as > well). >> I don't like &'s solution that the inner {ro} means something different from the outer; I prefer that there simply are no implicit inner quantifiers at all (I am not sure quite why they are there anyhow). As for Logic, non-importing quantifiers are extremely rare (I can think of maybe half-a-dozen books that use them and they almost all fringe). The view that they are common is simply a confusion between the quantifier itself and the way that modern logic choses to translate English (etc.) universal claims. This involves putting the apparent subject term in as antecedent of a material conditional, which is true if the antecedent is false. The universal quantifier in these translations is still importing (entails the corresponding particular claim) but the existence it imports is of universal class. {ro} is supposed to me just that quantifier, or its restricted form, the traditional universal affirmative, which imports for its class as well. --part1_19a.b322a25.2afa8c21_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 11/5/2002 8:15:43 PM Central Standard Time, lojban-out@lojban.org writes:
<<

imho it would *suck* *ass* if ro were importing though, as
lo'i broda wouldn't be something you could say when the set is
empty, since the inner quantifier is ro. Also I gather that
nonimporting universal quantifier is more standard in logic as
well).

>>
I don't like &'s solution that the inner {ro} means something different from the outer; I prefer that there simply are no implicit inner quantifiers at all (I am not sure quite why they are there anyhow).
As for Logic, non-importing quantifiers are extremely rare (I can think of maybe half-a-dozen books that use them and they almost all fringe). The view that they are common is simply a confusion between the quantifier itself and the way that modern logic choses to translate English (etc.) universal claims. This involves putting the apparent subject term in as antecedent of a material conditional, which is true if the antecedent is false. The universal quantifier in these translations is still importing (entails the corresponding particular claim) but the existence it imports is of universal class. {ro} is supposed to me just that quantifier, or its restricted form, the traditional
universal affirmative, which imports for its class as well.
--part1_19a.b322a25.2afa8c21_boundary--